Ford Interceptor - Kinda sexy (56k wrng)

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2007-05-01 01:01am

I don't know what it is, but I'm digging this car. I wonder what the mpg and what not would end up being if it ever became more than a concept.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-05-01 01:06am

I'm not terribly keen on it, especially how the face seems to be this big flat slab. In fact, despite the rounded edges, it just seems incredibly... boxy.

I'd honestly rather drive my 96 T-bird than this 'Interceptor'.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2007-05-01 01:44am

It does look boxy. In fact, it reminds me of a PT Cruiser in four-door sedan form. Needless to say, not sexy.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2007-05-01 03:27am

If the front were a little less like the back and had some slope to it this would be a pretty nice looking concept. The inside shows a startling lack of taste and thought, the last car on sale with a square wheel that I know of was the Austin Allegro, famed throughout the UK as a piece of shit. Fix the front, get someone with colour vision and legs to do the interior and I'd buy one.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-05-01 03:34am

The fat ass and rectangular front are pretty suck. Just bringing the chin up a bit and cutting off that awful tail thing they've got sticking out the back would improve it immensely. I like the 'long, low cabin' look though, always have.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-05-01 03:42am

It looks like an elephant sat on it. Squashed, blocky, about as elegant as a drunk Winston Churchill doing Swan Lake in the nude.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2007-05-01 04:36am

I'd have to agree that this isn't all that impressive. The Police Interceptor is still much better IMO.

Post by **Kuja** » 2007-05-01 10:36am

I rather like the exterior but the inside...ugh. It looks horrible.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-05-01 10:38am

I don't understand the tiny side windows. They're ugly, they're bound to make turns harder, they reduce natural light inside the car, the interior becomes that much more claustrophobic...

What's the reasoning behind them?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-05-01 10:45am

Bounty wrote:I don't understand the tiny side windows. They're ugly, they're bound to make turns harder, they reduce natural light inside the car, the interior becomes that much more claustrophobic...

What's the reasoning behind them?

By making the side windows and, in fact the whole top of the car very small the lower part is emphasized giving it the bullish appearance that it has. Kind of like you´d draw a comic tough guy (in Donald Duck comics generally represented by big dogs) with a very large, muscular body and a very small head.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-05-01 10:52am

Whatever happened to making cars look sexy? Aggressive cars are no fun. A real sports car is one you want to take out for dinner, not one you think will punch you in the face and take your wallet to buy crystal meth.

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2007-05-01 11:01am

Looks too much like Ford trying to make their version of the Chrysler/Dodge 300/Charger. I give it a thumbs down

Siege · Post by **Siege** » 2007-05-01 11:22am

The interior looks as if the designer thought he had to design a mobile phone and only figured out this was supposed to be for a car at the last minute. Positively ghastly- I don't think car interiors have seen that many rectangles since the 80's. And the face is even worse than that. What were they thinking? "Let's outdo the Chrysler 300 in its sheer dreadful ugliness"?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2007-05-01 04:45pm

How is that sexy? It's a fucking box!

Post by **RogueIce** » 2007-05-01 07:42pm

I don't think the back end would be as bad if the front end were a bit lower, giving it more of a "crouched" look. I don't know if that makes handling or anything any worse (I guess you'd do it with slightly smaller front tires?) but it would look better.

As for the interior, what's up with that? Is that going to be like an MFD or something? Select which displays you want to pop up?

Personally I prefer the "analog" guages over digital stuff. I don't know if one is more reliable than the other, but analog at least lets me think it is.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2007-05-01 07:59pm

"Now, not only is your front ground visibility expanded to 50 feet in front of the car, but there's less glass to shatter when you get in an accident!"

Looks-wise though... Why does the hood not slope down? And no, 5 or so degrees is not considered "sloping down".

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2007-05-01 08:02pm

That doesn't look like anything I want to cruise around in our gas-starved soon-to-be Mad Max world. No intimidation factor for when I raid mutant fortifications.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-05-01 08:05pm

Bounty wrote:Whatever happened to making cars look sexy? Aggressive cars are no fun. A real sports car is one you want to take out for dinner, not one you think will punch you in the face and take your wallet to buy crystal meth.

Everybody should have the same aesthetic tastes in cars! Screw those fucking Americans!

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2007-05-01 08:20pm

Azazal wrote:Looks too much like Ford trying to make their version of the Chrysler/Dodge 300/Charger. I give it a thumbs down

Not exactly: This is essentially an updated version of the 2003 Ford 427 concept, which predates the Chrysler LX cars.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-05-01 08:53pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Bounty wrote:Whatever happened to making cars look sexy? Aggressive cars are no fun. A real sports car is one you want to take out for dinner, not one you think will punch you in the face and take your wallet to buy crystal meth.
Everybody should have the same aesthetic tastes in cars! Screw those fucking Americans!

The ZR-1 says shame on you!

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2007-05-01 11:31pm

Honestly, looks like a Chrysler 300 with more chrome.

I kind of like the dashboard though, reminds me of older cars where the whole front was a straight piece, instead of these newer cars that try to wrap around you. I had to drive my dad's friend's Lexus SUV, and god damned if I didn't feel claustrophobic. It felt like it was trying to surround me in the luxurious feeling of leather and safety blanket all at once. Bah.

Also, the huge rims look sucks. Especially since it's going to be on the concept to make it look nicer, but you know the actual production model will have 16" at the most, and they'll be plastic.

I hate the ones that look like a man hole cover wrapped in aluminium foil. Pimpin' it ain't.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2007-05-01 11:32pm

And the car linked by Ma Deuce looks nicer than this. Way less chrome. But still fugly.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-05-02 03:18am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Bounty wrote:Whatever happened to making cars look sexy? Aggressive cars are no fun. A real sports car is one you want to take out for dinner, not one you think will punch you in the face and take your wallet to buy crystal meth.
Everybody should have the same aesthetic tastes in cars! Screw those fucking Americans!

Yeah, screw them.

It's not that Americans can't build good-looking cars, they've just forgotten how sometime during the seventies, barring a few exceptions.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2007-05-02 07:35am

Phantasee wrote:And the car linked by Ma Deuce looks nicer than this. Way less chrome. But still fugly.

Yes it is fugly; front fascia looks almost tacked on. But, I must say the styling cues look really good on the first production car to actually use them, the Ford Fusion

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-05-02 09:15am

Ma Deuce wrote:
Phantasee wrote:And the car linked by Ma Deuce looks nicer than this. Way less chrome. But still fugly.
Yes it is fugly; front fascia looks almost tacked on. But, I must say the styling cues look really good on the first production car to actually use them, the Ford Fusion

They sell two different cars under the same name now? Because the only Fusion I know is a lot smaller. That's got to be confusing in internal memos