(2003-2005 and 2006-2008 Honda Pilots; an undisputed facelift situation)
Recently, some varying opinions in the comment thread regarding car generations raised a very good point: Exactly which qualities distinguish a new generation of a car from merely a mid-cycle refresh?
(2005-2010 and 2011-2013 Infiniti M; clearly distinct generations)
There is no universal definition of what a vehicle generation is. While the general guidelines usually imply an entirely new platform, body, mechanics and styling, “new” cars are almost never 100 percent new. While a “full-redesign” may indeed consist of all-new sheetmetal, often times much of what lies underneath remains the same.
(2011-2012 and 2005-2010 Toyota Avalons; another undisputed mid-cycle refresh)
A face-life or mid-cycle refresh is usually classified by minor tweaks to front and rear fascias, and often trim, equipment, and powertrain changes, but the degree of visual and mechanical change varies by a large degree on a situational basis.
As stated though, there are no set in stone terms defining either of these acts. When a car update falls in the vast gray area in between is when things get fuzzy, and it becomes harder to classify what type of update it is. So, when a car receives an extensive update, but a good amount of parts are carried over, is it a facelift/mid-cycle refresh or is it a full-redesign/new generation?
(2011-2013 and 2014-2015 Mercedes C-Class; 2014s were given all-new sheetmetal and a new platform with a 3-inch longer wheelbase. Clearly a full-redesign warranting the “new generation” designation)
For most vehicles, the distinction between facelift and new generation is fairly clear and universally agreed upon. However, throughout history there have been many cars where it’s hard to draw the line between a facelift or a new generation. I won’t even get into the days when cars received annual styling changes, which could go from minor fascia tweaks to a large amount of new sheetmetal and updated mechanic. Let me present a few of many possible cases:
Take for example the 1986-1991 and 1992-1995 Ford Taurus. Though for 1992 most of the sedan’s sheetmetal was all new and the interior was completely redesigned, most mechanical components remained unchanged, as did the doors. Additionally, wagon models were entirely the same as the 1986-1991s from the A-pillars back. It’s near universally accepted that the 1992 Taurus was a full redesign and thus the start of the second generation. However, there are some pundits who refute this, calling the 1992 Taurus merely a face-lifted version of the original.
Conversely, let’s look at the 1982-1987 and 1988-1994 Chevrolet Cavalier. Like the Taurus, 1988 wagons were unchanged from the A-pillar back, as were sedans with the exception of a new rear clip. Coupe versions, however, received almost entirely new sheetmetal and a heavily revised roofline. Despite this, the 1987 Cavalier is more generally considered a facelift instead of a second generation. Perplexed yet?
Another confusing example is the 2014-2015 Kia Sorento. Apart from updated front and rear fascias, sheetmetal itself was largely the same compared to the 2011-2013. However, underneath, the 2014 Sorento was significantly changed, with a substantially re-engineered chassis offering increased torsional rigidity, and major improvements to suspension, steering, braking, interior, and powertrain. Carried over components from 2013 was reportedly less than 20 percent, and naturally, Kia considered the 2014 Sorento as “all-new”. Despite this, most sources will cite the 2014-2015 Sorento as a substantial facelift.
Things get even trickier when a significantly refreshed car is given a new name, for example, the AMC Hornet and Concord. Versus the 1977 Hornet, the 1978 Concord featured a new front fascia, hood, fenders, bumpers, and a new rear end design, among numerous mechanical and interior upgrades. AMC marketed the Concord as all-new, though was careful to also highlight its “upscale” enhancements over the Hornet.
The Volvo 700-Series and 900-Series are a similar case. While the 1990 940 and 960 sedans still looked similar to their 740 and 760 predecessors, sheetmetal from the A-pillar back was all new, and sedans were also treated to new rooflines and redesigned trunks. Numerous other enhancements were made underneath, and 960 received updated powertrain. 900-Series wagons, predictably, were much more similar to the 700-Series, just to make things more confusing.
(2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation Mercury Grand Marquis; Despite mostly carry-over sheetmetal between the 3rd and 4th generation, the 4th received a greater amount of changes underneath)
My own personal conclusion to this question is that it comes down primarily to styling. However, just how much styling must change to necessitate it being called a “new generation” still appears to vary on a situational basis. Maybe we need to introduce a new term to describe those updates that fall in between?
When the platform (or body structure) is changed significantly, then a new generation starts. But the manufacturer does not always share details with the public, although this not so much the case now. Your Taurus example is a good one. I think the basic platform is not changed, but the interior layout is all new (if one can trust Wikipedia on this). In the 60’s, with annual changes, one would say not a second gen, but I think this is a new generation, but not completely new.
The second generation CTS was still on the sigma platform, which may have been somewhat upgraded, but the primary change was the interior. The body did get a bit larger too. This was the 2008 CTS.
To me, the 1992 Taurus, Voyageur/ Caravan, 1988 Cavalier, 1997 Camry, and every Camry that has appeared after the 2002 Camry to the present car, are face-lifts. I think many face-lifts are called new by manufacturer pr officials and the automotive media hype specialists. It’s always new, isn’t it? You’ll never hear a clean sheet design described as a face-lift, but you almost always hear a face-lifted design described as all new. When it’s based on the existing design in any significant way (except power train), it’s a face-lift.
I think that there are few “clean sheet” designs. The 2013 Cadillac ATS and the 2014 Cadillac CTS sedan are new designs (the CTS is a bigger version of the ATS). The new Impala is really on an updated platform, so is more of an evolutionary design, but the impala was on the W platform, so it is new I guess.
It almost has to be judged on a case by case basis. Sometimes when a car is a best seller they manufacturer will change much of what is under the skin without fundamentally changing the exterior. Contrary-wise there are times when the sales are flagging but there is insufficient money for a total redesign so there will be a minor face lift.
Let’s use the Toyota Highlander as an example
2001 to 2007: Few changes either external or internal
2008 to 2013: New Model but a mid cycle refresh for the 2011 model year makes the front end more “squinty” like the old model being forced to look into the sun.
2014 – present, all new.
Platforms XU 20, XU 40, XU 50 but all referred to as the “Toyota K Platform”
I can’t stand that rear window on the red concord in that photo. That is the ugliest thing I have ever seen.
Good point.
+1. Just as bad as that droopy quarter window on the Hyundai Genesis coupe. Destroys an otherwise attractive car.
How would a 76 Ford Grand Torino vs a 77 Ford LTD be described? Or a 78 Fairmont vs an 81 Granada vs and 83 LTD? And the same applies for a 76 Aspen/Volare vs 77 Diplomat/Lebaron vs 1981 New Yorker/Fifth Ave/Diplomat/Gran Fury. . .
After driving Diplomat SE and Volare, it’s just surprising how they can decorate a car.
And the Lebaron/Diplomat coupes, and the J coupes: Mirada/Cordoba/Imperial. The F body had a rough start but potentially could have rivaled the K car for variants….
F-Body has quite many variants especially in different body styles. But a basic sedan is really not much different from Volare to Fifth Avenue. I never know they are that similar until driving both myself ( Diplomat SE in my case ) even though I saw endless photos of both and knew they shared a lot of components, it still amazed me when I drove both. Even though nothing on surface is same ( from dashboard to all body panels except front doors ) they reused all components as long as it’s possible to borrow. All four doors are the same with stamping even with the belt lines from F-Body, but it’s almost invisible on M-Body, and they took advantage of welding something different on the top portion of rear doors, thus changing the roofline at the same time. Every single gauge, light is the same underneath, but on M-Body they were put in quite an exaggerating way, and fuel gauge is pretty huge. And material wise, there is nothing in common between those two neither.
In my personal opinion, when the platform is totally clean sheet. Nothing reused except maybe the radio and emblems. When parts directly interchange with new and the old, providing proper retrofit potential for upgrades or maintenence for either, I’m sorry but If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
It’s not very clearcut though. I do remember this discussion and to reiterate it, the 1st generation Mustang and “midsize era” Taurus(1st through 4th gen) are prime examples. The Mustang from 1964-1/2-1973 is generally lumped into one generation because the platform never really changed, whereas the Taurus is christened with 4 generations, despite changing no more substantially than those years than the Mustangs.
I think a new platform can share something beyond radio and emblems, like axles, steering, or windows ( if the company is money pinching enough ) door handles, maybe even few minor suspension components, brakes, or driving shafts if the size happens to be the same.
Ford is pretty good at reusing parts though.
Chrysler used to add another dimension to the question by changing bodies while keeping the appearance nearly identical. (Why bother?) The ’35 and ’36 Plymouth were significantly different but nobody noticed. The ’39 Plymouth looked all-new but wasn’t. The ’49 and ’50 Plymouth were different but nobody noticed.
It’s like trying to tell people that the new millennium started in 2001, not 2000. While technically true, popular opinion is not swayed by the facts. Auto manufacturers may say, “All new generation!”, to which the media pundits disagree.
I’d tend to think of a vehicle as being a “new generation” if the platform and possibly drivetrain is significantly revised, even if the vehicle looks close to the same. If the vehicle is being touted as a new generation primarily because of redesigned bodywork, I’d expect to see a new greenhouse. Redesigning the glass area of a car is expensive. If they reused the previous glass, I’d be more inclined to disagree and say it’s a refresh.
In light of what I have written, the 1964-66 Imperial should be a “refresh” versus the previous Exner-styled years. Obviously looks very different, but as Paul likes to point out it has the same windshield, and the chassis and drivetrain are little changed. Wikipedia says that the entire 1957-66 run is “second generation”, which corroborates that.
Another example is the 1992 to 1997 Seville vs the 1998 to 2003 Seville. Both look much the same with interiors that are similar. But the 1998 Seville moved to the FWD G platform making it an all new body.
That’s the car I don’t understand. Unless a person fixing the car, parts man, or those engineers/car nuts taking a very close look at the design, most people wouldn’t know how different those two cars are. They look almost the same outside and inside, while they spent much resource making the platform almost completely different. Is that because GM feel no one else had a better design than Chuck Jordan’s idea so they just carried over? And it’s not common for car companies to deliberately make a new car similar looking as the old one to that extent.
My understanding is that discussions with owners of the 92-95 or so, indicated that they liked the design as is, so it did not change much.
Even the 2004 RWD STS has some similar lines. Well, Cadillac had a winner.
The first gen Seville sold at 40,000 to 50,000 annually. The 80-85 Seville was much less than that. Then the 86-91 was really no better. But the 92 Seville was back. So I think Cadillac was afraid of making another mistake with a major change in style. The CTS, STS and SRX had consistent styling.
Usually for a car, if A/B/C pillar remains the same, also the floorpan, transmission tunnel, it can be seen as an update. If the floorpan/suspension towel is same, but A/B/C pillar is changed, it’s some deeper update ( like ’96 Taurus )
This is of particular interest to me, because for the last several years I’ve been working on a little side project I like to call…er, well, I don’t have a name for it. I was maybe thinking die großen Automotivprojekt, because everything sounds better in a foreign language.
Quite simply, it’s every American car since the restart of the market after WWII on its own sheet of A4 paper, viewed from the side, all to scale with each other (as best as I can manage). Eventually, I’ll do every Japanese/Korean and European make that has been sold in the US, but one thing at a time here!
But to get back to the subject at hand:
Since my project hinges on the outward appearance of a vehicle, that’s what I use in determining generations. The ’65 Ford pickup is the same generation as the ’64 even though the frame was all-new. Same with the ’08 Super Duty vs. earlier models. Generally, I go by what Wikipedia calls a generation, unless the only difference is in the front clip. Just a front clip refresh or new taillights does not warrant a new sheet of paper. The ’92 Taurus is different than the ’91 because both the front clip and the rear section were new, even though the cabin was the same between models.
With this metric, I’ve gotten 677 unique models out of all the American branded cars: GM, Mopar, FoMoCo, and the various independent marques. In the past 4.5-ish years, I’ve completed 416 (that’s with a lot of do-overs for those that were out of scale), or just over 61%, though it may be higher or lower for individual marques–for instance, Ford is at 97 out of 114, but Chevrolet is only at 48 out of 100.
Once I’ve “completed” my work with American marques (I put that in quotes because I will always be adding new models as they are released), I’ll be moving on to the Japanese and Korean cars (currently over 600), and then European marques. It’s more difficult to get an accurate count with these, because the date of when they began (or ended, in some cases) U.S. sales is not always reliably known.
What I’m doing is by no means a technically accurate blueprint, but an artistic representation that tries to be as accurate as possible. I’m currently redoing 40+ different models not because the drawings were bad, but because they were out of scale (I have a way of dealing with scale issues that’s not difficult, but it is time-consuming and relies on access to a scanner).
I store the completed drawings in binders, which is not completely ideal. Eventually, I’ll have all of them scanned and stored in an online album.
Once I get all my ducks in a row, I will share what I’ve done with the world. Until that day, here’s the Mark V (which I’ve always regarded as one of the better representations of my work). Questions and comments are welcome, though I might not get back to them until later tonight.
Not bad! It’ll be interesting to see how the competition lines up for similar eras (LTD vs Caprice vs Diplomat…) I’m guessing pretty closely!
I’ve already done all three (the Diplomat is a “rebadged variant” of the ’77 LeBaron, because all they have different is front ends and taillights). The Caprice is really a big car, all the space of the ’76 with none of the excess. The LTD was juust a little bit too small compared to the Chevy (something that’s been covered here multiple times) but still a good size. The Diplomat really shows where Chrysler came up short–literally. It’s almost as big as a Panther in WB, but because it was built on a pre-downsize “compact” platform (the Aspen), its cabin is about the same size as a post-downsize Malibu or LeMans. After Ford and GM downsized their midsizers further (Fox-body/Taurus and A-body, respectively), the Diplomat found kind of a niche in between the new midsize and the traditional fullsize.
Interesting. I knew the Caprices were large, but I didn’t know they were significantly different. We owned a 1989 New Yorker, so the Diplomats always looked pretty large to me!
Awesome project, and nice work.
And as you mention that the Diplomat comes up short, it also comes up narrow.
That is a limit to side-profile line drawings that I noticed when I was reading Road & Track in the ’80s and ’90s: At various times during the downsizing craze, Chrysler in particular would sell the same sausage, but with a longer casing.
Big job. Very interested to see comparisons; if you’ve scanned them all you could overlap them in Photoshop to get a bodyline that’s been averaged over several bodies. Keep us in the loop.
I can kind of do that already because paper is translucent, but only two at a time and with a good light source behind.
Another confusing one is the 97 escort/tracer, the wagons were much the same, but the sedans had all new sheetmetal.
Great job Doc Zhivago,
I would like to know how you judge 1949 -1976 Chevrolets ?
I mostly go by Wikipedia for the generations of what I call the “one-car-only” times, when a manufacturer only had one car per marque (not counting sports cars or personal coupes), but sold it under different names (Bel Air, Biscayne, 210, Nomad, Beauville, etc.). Hence:
’49 Chevy (1949-52)
’53 Chevy (1953-54)
’55 Chevy (1955-57)
’58 Chevy (1958 only)
’59 Chevy (1959-60)
1960 and later was when you started to see other, smaller cars (not just with Chevy, but everybody), but I still label the big car as “(year number) Chevrolet” because until the mid-80s, there was always at least two models on the same body (Impala and Caprice).
’61 Chevy (1961-64)
’65 Chevy (1965-70)
’71 Chevy (1971-76)
’77 Chevy (1977-90)
The ’77 is the last I’ve labeled by just the Chevrolet name, because by the time the “’91 Chevrolet” came out, it was just the Caprice (or rather, Caprice Classic).
Caprice Classic Gen 4 (1991-96)
Impala Gen 8 (2000-05)
Impala Gen 9 (2006-13/16) (The /16 is needed because the 9th gen continues as the Impala Classic)
Impala Gen 10 (2014- )
(Note that I don’t really consider the 8th and 9th gen Impalas to be full-size, or anything from the W-body to be a full-size car, ever, but it did fill the role as Chevrolet’s largest sedan.)
1983 Honda Civic to 1984 Civic is a textbook example of a new generation.
Going back in car history Studebaker is hard one to define. They used the same frame and basic bodies from 1953 to 1966. They had four different cars that the same from firewall to back seat. What other car made in the time frame can take entire front clips from one year and put the a car that is 2 or 3 years difference and have look like it built that way. Rambler had the same basic unibody from 1955 to 1962, but the ’62 looks nothing like a ’55. Looks like they did 2 refreshes from 1955 to 1962? The ’63 was a totally new unibody, but used almost all the old mechanical s, at least on the six. For the V8 they had a lot of different parts on the running gear, almost like two different cars using the same body. This subject is on slippery slope, everyone has their opinions on it.
This is a perfect example of what can be done with hardly any money. These companies could not afford to change very much, but had to restyle in order to survive at all. Ultimately, it didnt matter. Im sure early unibody structure made it even more expensive to re-tool than with a frame.
“I know it when I see it,” Supreme Court Justice Potter Stevens once said regarding pornography.
I think that applies here.
If the average person on the street says “Yeah, that’s a second gen Monte Carlo that they built from 1973-1977,” but may have trouble narrowing down the exact year because those five years carried over the majority of major appearance parts during the run, it’s probably a distinct generation.
If the marketing department is in sync with the average person, that helps. When the very different 1978 Monte Carlo was introduced, both the marketers and the person on the street were in high agreement that the third generation had been released.
Things get a lot more murky when the best selling version of a nameplate gets big changes, while another version does not. There seem to be two generations of the Ford Tempo sedan, while the coupe never seemed to be more than refreshed.
Or, sometimes the marketing department simply does as executive management says. Remember the excitement of the all new 2008 Ford Taurus? Neither do I. But Ford was quite excited after they re trimmed the 2007 Ford 500 and gave it a new engine and new name. But, only the most dedicated CC’ers would spend bar time arguing the points, the car had lackluster sales and most folks don’t care.
I’d break it into categories as follows:
All-new: completely new platform and body, though powertrain may carry over. Examples would be ’79 GM X-body and E-body, 1981 Chrysler K-body, 1986 Taurus, 1986 Honda Accord.
Major Refresh: Windshield and basic structure remain unchanged, but major makeover to body panels, roofline and interior. Examples would be 1964 Imperial, 1997 Toyota Camry, 1969 GM B-body.
Minor Refresh: Some body panels changed, but many carry over. Could include revised rear roofline and new instrument panel. Structure unchanged. Examples include 1974 GM B-body coupes, 1988 Cavalier 2-door, 1992 and 2000 Taurus, 1991 Chrysler minivan, 2011 Chrysler 300.
Major Facelift: Trim changes, primarily to the front and rear fascias/bumpers and body side moldings. Revised interior materials. This category would include many mid-cycle updates for European and Asian brands in the 1990s/2000s, 1968 GM B-body, 1975 Ford LTD, 1988 Cavalier 4-door and wagon, 2015 Chrysler 300.
Minor Facelift: Grill texture changes and tail light lens modifications. 1978 GM B-body.
No changes. Perhaps a color or two, or new upholstery materials. Most common today.
You bring up an interesting question to think about today. The 92-95 Taurus/Sable are considered a new gen of the Taurus. But the 92-95 Sedans share the same doors as the first gen that the 2nd generation wagon is the same as the first except for the front end. The same goes for the 96-99 and 2000-2005 Taurus wagons. They both share the body but with different front ends.
The interesting thing is nothing is ever consistent in what constitutes a new generation of vehicle.
Take the 92-96 and 97-99 Buick Lesabre. Both are considered the 7th Generation of Lesabre (92-99) and GM called the 1997 a refresh of the 93-96 Lesabre. But the 97-99 looks so much different then the 92-96 Lesabre that it should have been considered a new generation. The front and back ends were changed and the front fenders switched to steel instead of plastic like the 92-96. This made the 97-99 look much slimmer and different then the porky 92-96 version.
Both Taurus and LeSabre you mentioned have similar degree of refresh, but it depends on sales department on how to market them. And even though ’97-’99 LeSabre appears so slimmer and newer, it was done so more to blend with other products at the time, so the best selling full size sedan wouldn’t stick out in the showroom having an early ’90s feeling. ( in ’97, Roadmaster was gone, Riviera stayed in showroom as if a concept car, Park Avenue had a fresh looking, and there was no more old A-Body Century, instead there was significant newer W-Body Century/Regal. LeSabre would stick out too far if not changed. )
The LeSabre was really a minor refresh. The bumpers were changed (Along with the front lights), and the dashboard fake-wood trim became darker in color. Other than that, I can’t think of anything that was different.
At least the Taurus received a fully-new cockpit. The LeSabre’s was virtually unchanged (Probably a radio or something like that changed). My 1995 LeSabre seems nice for the era, but that interior had to look dated in 1999.
Actually the 97-99 Lesabre got new front and rear bumpers, new head lights, tail lights, trunk, hood, grill and new fenders that were steel instead of plastic. That to me constitutes a new model. I don’t view the same looking interior as being an issue since GM seems to delight in keeping an interior for a long time.
One subtle change was the door structure being beefed up on the post-facelift LeSabres. This is readily apparent by looking at the bottom of the doors from the inside – the carpeted section at the bottom of the doors is flush with the big armrests on the post-facelift cars, but flush with the top of the door (above the armrest) on the pre-facelift cars.
The 1997 Park Avenue is moved to the G body making it a new generation. Changes to the Lesabre are probably to keep it looking less dated, or more consistent with the Park Avenue. The Lesabre moves to G for 2000.
I think when the overall character of the car is significantly changed then it’s a redesign or all-new design and not just a mid-cycle refresh. So for me, the ’92-95 Taurus was a refresh, since it drove the same as the old model. However, the AMC Concord was a significant improvement over the old Hornet, the new interior, extra sound deadening and upgraded suspension changed the overall character and driving experience, so therefore it qualified as an all-new design.
It’s not always clear cut and can be tricky at times. Honda used to be really good with their 4-yr cycles for Civic and Accord, but even for them the lines has become blurred in recent years. Interesting article, great read!
Perfectly stated, Frank! I agree with you 100%!
Thanks Tom!
As for the Ford Taurus: despite the major appearance changes between the first Taurus in 1986 and the 2007, the last before it took a hiatus, the basic suspension, chassis and floorpan remained the same. Crawling under my 2002 wagon is virtually the same as had been crawling under my 1986 wagon, except for the engine (DOHC Duratec vs. OHV Vulcan). Even the transmissions, though there are internal and functional differences, almost look the same from outside. I’d actually characterize the 1986-2007 Ford Taurus as one generation with a lot of plastic surgery, which meant that even as revolutionary as it was when introduced, by the time it bowed out, competitors from GM (Impala) and Chrysler (Intrepid-Concorde, then 300-Magnum) had surpassed it.
I’m surprised the Saab 99/900 wasn’t used as an example. A new name doesn’t always mean a new car.
Or the Volvo 140 and 240
To me, an all-new body defines a new generation. Specifically – the all-new door openings (body side panels, door frames – you call it), which are the most expensive body parts to manufacture the stamps/dies for, so changing them is a major investment, usually made only once in a model’s life cycle (sometimes with some partial changes, like Studebaker replacing the slanted A-pillar with a vertical one in 1955).
The old and the new generations may share the same platform (frame / subfames, floor pan, engine & transmission, etc.) – just as two completely different vehicles may be built upon the very same platform. Of course, such sharing often makes the new generation somewhat outdated (not universally as styling changes are faster than technical progress). But a new generation nonetheless.
Agree – to me, carryover doors, door frames, and even door handles are dead giveaways of a refresh.
Even then, the automakers have a big bag of tricks.
For example, the unsuccessful Ford Freestyle/TaurusX was heavily “refreshed” into very successful Ford Explorer. And hardly anyone noticed.
(Maybe the doorframes wouldn’t quite fit, but core body shape is nearly identical. But Freestyle looked like a Taurus wagon, and the Explorer has a bunch of tuff styling motifs.)
I agree with Stanislav, sharing doors and windshield is a giveaway the car is not “new”, but sharing the platform – which nearly always has some change – is a distinction between “new generation” and “all new”. The latter doesn’t happen often.
The Explorer is pretty substantially different in the body from the Freestyle/Taurus X, likewise the 1995 Taurus is a lot different from the earlier cars even if the underpinnings are the same as before.
I wouldn’t call the 1992 Taurus a new generation. With hindsight, the very short run is a clear giveaway it was a major facelift only.
+1
The first two generations of the BMW Mini Hatch and Convertible (2000-06 and 2007-12) are difficult to distinguish visually but are supposedly quite different. The third and current generation is more distinctive.
Excellent article! It addresses the great confusion about how cars are marketed to the public. Well done!!!
If the parts from the A to C pillar don’t interchange it’s a new generation. Otherwise it’s a refresh/update. Generally the platform (suspension, steering) parts will mostly be changed at the same time. Drive train carryovers would often be expected gen to gen.
Toyota seems to be the king of touting “all new” for a re-skin of a car or truck.
I want to cry every time I see a W205 C-Class (or its E, S and GL-Class contemporaries). The W204 was the best-looking C-Class, and it all was ruined when the puglike W205 was released.
All of the new Mercedes models look ugly and indistinguishable, the previous models were sharp-looking. Everything looks like a Toyota or a Kia. That’s the new aspiration.
Really, really interesting question you pose here Brendan. One which was always on my mind growing up, as Ford and Holden released their ‘new’ or ‘facelifted’ Falcons and Commodores respectively. A ‘new’ version of either was the highlight of the motoring year for many folks, yet the economies of scale present in Australia meant that it was very rare for any of them to be all new.
For me, I agree with 67Conti. I always felt if the doors interchanged it was a facelift; if the ‘passenger cell’ (A-C pillar) changed it was all-new.
But in the facelift vs all new debate, I think there’s a third possibility: the ‘Grandpa’s Axe’ principle, ably demonstrated by the seven generations of Australian Ford Falcon:
* Gen 1 – XK, XL
* Gen 1a with new rear sheetmetal XM, XP
* Gen 2 – XR, XT
* Gen 2a with new front and rear sheetmetal and new roof but carryover doors and glass – XW, XY
* Gen 3 – XA, XB
* Gen 3a with new rear doors – XC
* Gen 4 – XD, XE, XF
* Gen 4a utes and vans only – XG
* Gen 4b utes and vans only – new structure ahead of the firewall – XH
* Gen 5 – EA, EB, ED
* Gen 5a with new front and rear sheetmetal and roof but carryover doors – EF, EL
* Gen 6 – AU
* Gen 6a with new front and rear sheetmetal and roof – BA, BF
* Gen 7 – FG
* Gen 7a – FG-X
Each generation was ostensibly new, with a visually-different ‘passenger cell’ to the previous generation. But the underlying structure sometimes bore strong similarities with the previous generation – eg the rear doors and upper-rear sides/roof of a 1972 van will fit a 1999 van despite the otherwise quite different-looking bodies.
Also, running gear and floorpan changes (as well as occasional structural changes) mostly occurred mid-generation, so the visually-all-new generations often used their immediate predecessor’s running gear and floorpan.
So there you go, we can have new, facelifted and/or Grandpa’s Axe!
The ‘tub’ of the 1972 XA ute and panel van carried through to the last of the XH models in early 1999, although they changed the profile of the ribs pressed into the floor, as did the tailgate.
I’ve started working on just such a ‘grandpa’s axe’ article on the Falcon, to step through the changes.
Interesting and intriguing discussion. And by the way, the first generation Pilot was the best of all of them.
I was amongst those in on the original “what constitutes a new generation” discussion on that other thread, and was prompted by the Golf Mk6 looking and feeling a whole lot like the Mk5 in my driveway even though it’s universally considered a different generation. Compared to the Mk5, the Mk6 has the same size, shape, windows, roof, many interior trimpieces like the lower half of the dash and rear quarter panels. Not to mention the same basic platform and drivetrain. I drive one and both generations look and feel like the same car. But VW says the Mk6 is a new generation, so it is. Volkswagen wouldn’t lie, would they?
Contrast the first-gen Mustang – the ’71-’73 is somehow part of the same generation as the ’65-’66 even though they look nothing alike and are vastly different sizes and weights. Yes, they’re on the same platform, but so are many other different-generation cars.
Chevrolet cars of 1949-1957 appears to use the same body platform despite the all new sheetmetal. Does anyone agree?