Chrysler design done with the 'edge,' going organic
Trevor Creed resigned from the position of Chrysler's head of design, and as of today is succeeded by Ralph Gilles, the man who designed the 300C. Since every change at the top comes with a "new sheriff in town" speech -- or at least one-liner -- this is what Gilles had to say: "It's definitely time for a new aesthetic at Chrysler. ... We're done with the 'edge' look."
Gilles says he wants the Pentastar's cars to look more "organic." This being art, however, that could really mean anything. For concrete examples and practical considerations he mentioned the Dodge Zeo and Chrysler Ecovoyager, and said that he wants to design "sexy" cars that will appeal around the world. Intriguing statements from the gent known for a car that epitomizes the American muscle sedan, but we are all in favor, and we say "aye." The only question is how soon will they start the redesign, and what will organic look like?
[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
TJ 9:39AM (9/02/2008)
isn't this, like, the third time this story has been posted here?
Reply
dwightB 10:03AM (9/02/2008)
Seriously, I was thinking the SAME thing! Stop posting about it til you have something organic to show us, lol.
TJ 10:13AM (9/02/2008)
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/20/gilles-chrysler-done-with-edge-look-going-organic/
Johnathan, talk to Jeremy.
Josiah 10:33AM (9/02/2008)
Yay for PR!
wonkydonkydotnet 9:41AM (9/02/2008)
I kinda like the 300.
That being said, this guy should just change his last name to Callum or da'Silva and pray another chrome-plated turd doesn't hammer that last coffin nail.
Reply
Nellydesign 11:20AM (9/02/2008)
They need to focus on nailing the proportions first before worrying about what surface detailing they will use. The 300 had good proportions which is why it is viewed as a success. The Sebring... not so much. Good proportions means good platforms though so they'll need to start there.
JEziquiel 9:43AM (9/02/2008)
Smacks of designer hubris, this.
Chrysler just needs to evolve carefully, not throw out the baby with the dishwater.
Reply
TJ 10:15AM (9/02/2008)
hubris? I don't think you know what the meaning of hubris is....
"When you get the opportunity to be head of design, you should always try to get your company to the point where you're being proactive and the others have to react to what you're doing. That gets you design leadership. It's not something you can just proclaim; it's something you have to earn." - Tom Gale 6/18/2007
JEziquiel 10:57AM (9/02/2008)
Hubris; "exaggerated pride or self-confidence" - Merriam-Webster online dictionary
BMW has earned the right to its design leadership through self-confident designs that support innovative engineering. For Chrysler to deliver a new aesthetic and continue to underpin it with below average engineering, and sub-par interiors is a measure of its own exaggerated pride.
Mr Gale is a pompous man who took Chrysler into the arms of Daimler Benz and left it a legacy of design completely separate from engineering. He is the model of hubris.
TJ 11:21AM (9/02/2008)
Your argument continues to lack any form of substance or reason. Let me follow this through...
Unless the mechanical bits left unseen are Sherman-tank strong, the most stunning design is a heap pile?
Design is just that, what the eyes see. What the eyes don't see is completely unrelated to design.
Form follows function in few cases. Enzo, F1, MC12, see a pattern here? Occasionally it will trickle into mainstream, ie. original cab-forward designs, but that is not as widespread when compared to specialty vehicles.
Instead, you are just a retard trying to find any reason possible to take a swipe at Chrysler. Good day.
JEziquiel 11:59AM (9/02/2008)
"Chrysler needs to evolve"
That was my straightforward statement. There are good designs currently in Chrysler's portfolio: Challenger, 300 (though dated), Journey. Organic is a nice thing for a designer to say since hes now the man in charge, but where does that leave the current product?
If you had half a brain you would reference the other examples of good design/styling where evolution has enhanced the product: C6 Corvette, 911, 3 Series, Camry. These are products that evolved from prior generations, allowing engineers to massage and refine the underpinnings while challenging designers to update the skin with cues that were an evolution of what came before.
Chrysler's failing isn't due to Edge being dead, its that they never evolved it. The 300 has not been changed through its life cycle, so it in essence is an evolutionary dead-end at this point. GM on the other (and Ed Welburn in particular) gets this idea. Which is why the new CTS seems related to the old, why the current Buick lineup is stylish yet feels familiar.
Its not about changing your styling language, its about incorporating the new memes into what you have currently. If you want to play Bangle and go radical, then you need the engineering to back up the innovation.
Chrysler simply does not, but again you are simply too narrow minded to see it. They can't afford radical design changes because THAT would be a move that lacks substance. Consumers have gotten very savvy since the days of cab-forward. Slick new styling won't save the company, only measured progress and collaboration will.
But unfortunately you've taken this very terse and direct statement as a "swipe" at Chrysler. How droll. I could care less about fan-boy-ism. Its about the product, stupid. I think Chrysler has every right to survive, but not on the backs of its admittedly talented design staff. The product has to show a commitment to excellence, regardless of the chosen styling language.
BTW good design is a dialogue between the stylists and the engineers with a heavy heaping of market awareness. What the eyes don't see is still critical to the success of a good design. Additionally, design now encompasses the breadth of experience which involves sight, sound, feel, smell even. Doors have to shut with the right "thunk," the new car smell has to be pleasant, the materials have to respond with proper tactility.
Jeez I could go on but lets cut to the chase. I get paid to be a designer, what the hell do you do? Troll.
TJ 12:15PM (9/02/2008)
Then you should also know that the transition from Spirit to Stratus in 1995 as the type of dramatic design shift you decry now. Same with New Yorker to LHS. Same as the 1993 versus 1994 Ram and the 1996 vs 1997 Dakota. Same as Sundance to Neon.
Then take it a step further.
From the LHS/300M to the 300c/Charger. From Neon to Caliber.
Chrysler's design history is striking evidence that dramatic design departures can be incredibly effective, and an overall boon to the company, sales, and corporate image.
Noidor 12:26PM (9/02/2008)
JEziquiel - I agree with you. As far back as I can remember, whenever Chrysler got itself into trouble, it always came out and said that their new styling would be a revolution in automotive industry. Well ok, they came out with Intrepid, but the piss-poor execution remained. Whether it was the horrid interiors, awful quality, bad customer service, loud engines, bouncy ride, or lifeless steering wheel. It was just a myriad of reasons to avoid these clunkers at all cost.
And they're repeating themselves again, it's not even about so much design, but producing cars that do everything as good as the competition, and really excel above the rest in 2-3 areas.
Unfortunately Chrysler does not have the resources to deliver on their promise. It's all just PR smacking of desperation.
As for Trolls, yea there is plenty of it here...anti-diesel, pro-Chrysler, etc etc.
FD3rsrz 10:31AM (9/02/2008)
Wait, Chrysler has a design department? Since when? I thought they fired all of them in the early 2000's....
Reply
TJ 10:53AM (9/02/2008)
No, that's just when the decision making went to Germany....
0mega 9:55AM (9/02/2008)
Why is there a cadillac grille in my chrysler post? :P
Reply
Tourian 11:59AM (9/02/2008)
Exactlywhat I was thinking. Along with Caddy headlights.
Soccer Mom 9:56AM (9/02/2008)
Few years too late, but "better late than never".
I'd personally ask Trevor Creed and everyone who approved his creations to return every single penny paid to them by Chrysler as compensation for bastardizing the entire line up.
Throughout its history (as I remember it), Chrysler wasn't known for quality or mechanics. But it always had the looks. In the last few years, however, every Chrysler's car (aside from 300/Charger/Magnum) became simply horrible in every way, including their appearance.
Thank you, Trevor Creed, for driving a few nails into the coffin of N.American auto industry.
Reply
SPG 11:07AM (9/02/2008)
I agree that the previous designs were great, but they never aged very well.
The beautiful (at the time) Concorde, LHS, Sebring coupe, and smartly designed minivans all aged poorly I feel.
The designs went from very attractive to very yesterdays news very quickly.
However my biggest complaint has to be what happened to the Sebring convertible. It was pretty nice, not beautiful or sexy. Just a nice looking car that I'd be happy to own.
RG 10:01AM (9/02/2008)
Hey look, its the Chrysler suppository!
Reply