LET ME describe an evolutionary loop I have been pondering, beginning with the Mercedes-Benz 190E. With sheer surfaces and geometric architecture derived from the C111 concepts, the 190E appeared in 1982 without precedent in either concept or aesthetic. Its diminutative size took Mercedes into hitherto uncharetered territory, yet exquisite proportions kept in check by Bruno Sacco ensured the car looked as lithe and luxurious as his W126. The cut-off rear straight from the C111 ensured low drag, and applied the graphical layout found on the R107. Neatly, a thick black outline was used to lend a more modern look, and a chamfer on the lower edge of the bootlid helped disguise the height.
So impressed were Ford that they brought one into the studio when they designed the four-door Sapphire saloon, based on the Sierra. (Let us pause for moment to recognize the irony that Ford, who insisted on the Sierra’s polarizing soft shape for minimized drag, should use the chiseled 190E for inspiration.) Look at the styling of the rear and note the molten facsimile of the Ford. Dismissed as copying, imitation of upmarket brands is standard practise for mainstream manufacturers. Ford is still doing it now attempting to ape Aston Martin, as they understand that the customers aspirations are not necessarily as limited as their budget.
But a premium brand copying a mainstream car is a little less common. In 1988 Audi began developing the first A4. Moving away from the banded horizontal tail-lamps that had appeared before the A-prefix, Audi used the Sierra estate when benchmarking for the A4 Avant, which appeared in 1995. Both put stacked lamps outside of the bootlid, within a soft corner and plenty of metal between it and the glass. The boot-lid descended into the bumper, and there was even a little chamfer running around the base of the screen.
The following year, the Audi A3 was introduced. Although the tail-lights gained a slanted top edge, the influence from the Sierra estate remained clear. Neatly, I always thought, that little chamfer had developed into a full-blown notch on the first A3 serving as a gentle reminder of the other saloons in the Audi range.
The 1990’s were a time, remember, when Nissan Primera’s, Opel Vectra’s and now Ford Mondeo’s offered either four- or five-door variations of the same model. It was crucial to Audi’s move upmarket that those slanty-backed 100s and 5000s were consigned to the past,nevermind their strong association with aerodynamics. Emulation of top-of-the-range saloons was key. Even Suzuki had a go with the Baleno which sought to emulate, rather fancifully, the E38 BMW 7-Series.
In the 2000’s, 4x4s ditched their wellies and donned trainers to become SUVs in Europe, whereas China still favoured saloons. And as the Audi A4 moved upstream, the A3 was afforded room to grow. The A4 is now (quick internet search) over 4.7m long, just 50mm shorter than the first A6, and the new Audi A3 has sprouted a boot and grown to 4.5m –about the same as the Audi 80 that the first A4 replaced.
I rather like the new A3 saloon. There has been one parked outside my flat recently, and I always shoot it a glance when passing. Black, five spoke alloy wheels, tan leather interior, and of course that lovely dashboard. There is a clever surfacing trick between the rear wheel-arch and the shoulder, where the fender double-backs on itself for both a wide shoulder and a wide arch. Look at a typical section of a car, and it is something of a staircase where each crease makes it ever wider. The A3 is more of a zig-zag, bringing the same drama to narrower restrictions. Of course the car is still too bloated, but that’s what you get for using front-wheel drive.
Audis have become rather too formulaic of late, so this kind of detail adds some much needed intrigue. It is the perfect example of a Goldilocks car. Not too big, not too small. Premium without seeming ostentatious. Discrete, but holds your gaze when you see one. Just like the Mercedes 190E.
Nothing but love for the W201 Mercedes. Other high water marks of that era are the w124 and the w126. I wish we could scare up vintage road tests for all models.
I don’t know what it is, but that W201 still exudes quality and craftsmanship like no other of the cars mentioned. It still looks like its quality is a couple of notches above the rest of the field. And I don’t know what it is that makes it? If it’s that stern German asketicisim and minimalism, it tells so much with so subtle means. Just a couple of perfectly placed creases, and it looks like it’s forged from solid steel. Just by the way it looks, it tells a story of how it is made. That’s brand storytelling by intrinsic design, something no other brand has perfected as much as Daimler Benz did in those years. And that time may very well not come again.
There was a secret Bruno Sacco used to give this impression. I read it in an interview with him back in the 1990’s. He eliminated the majority of sharp creases in the metal and – here is the trick – the degree to which creases and folds in metal were done was for thicker grade steel than what they were actually using. Ie, visually speaking, the car looks more solid because it looks like it is made from steel that is harder to crease, bend and stamp to shape. A sort of battleship effect! You have to admit it works!
This was specifically done for the 201 because they were really worried about making such a small car and keeping their brand values intact. The other big worry was the ride – that had to be ‘big Mercedes’ somehow in a small car. They answered that challenge with the multi link rear axle – a real landmark design, which was mercilessly copied by everyone and derivations of which Mercedes still use.
The 201 was a real breakthrough in many ways, not least of which being that it was the first C Class, a range which is a major contributor to sales to this day.
Didn’t know that about the creases. Absolutely and utterly brilliant. Cheers
Agreed! I reckon they were up to this before too. I looked at both my 111 coupe and 108 and can see evidence of this practice in both. Gentle curves, few creases, solidity evident throughout. Actually I am currently searching for a nice R107 and looking at those one sees this approach again. The fact that the 107 was known within Mercedes as ‘der Panzerwagen’ speaks volumes!
That’s very interesting insights!. Thank you so much for that.
Coulda sworn the baby Benz 190 only arrived in the very late 80s early 90s as a response to things like Audis and executive Fords and Opels? Oh well you learn something every day I guess.
The W201 190-series was introduced to attract a younger public. A direct BMW 3-series competitor, in other words.
Most were bought by yuppie “merchant bankers” in the UK.
I think “today’s” Audis are very good looking cars with very well done interiors….but when they decided to go with the latest “virtual instrument gauges/display”, they lost it. I’m also no fan of the “corporate” front end design.
Mercedes, on the other hand, seems to have styling that veers all over the map, so to speak.
I hated the 190E when it appeared, but by the time production ended I had become a fan. I would still find a clean. used one hard to resist if the price was right.
The new A3 saloon also looks good to me from a distance, but I had the opportunity to drive a new A3 hatch/sportback last year and was not impressed. The instruments were illuminated in red, which is not something I would ever tolerate.My experience of Audi interiors is that they don’t stay “new” as long as I would like.
Red gauge lighting! It’s official, Audi is Volkswagen’s Pontiac.
Pontiac copied it from BMW, which later as far as I know abandoned the idea. Pontiac had a split grille theme dating from 1959, but in the later years clearly also aped the BMW split grille.
Audi had red gauge lighting all the way back in the 80’s. Our 1986 5000S featured red-lit gauges. Unless they abandoned it and then recently resurrected it, they were doing it well before Pontiac did.
The Audi 80/90 were also really handsome in a unique to Audi way. The A3 may force the A4 to grow a little more next time around. They today seem almost right on top of each other, with both now being sedans.
The 190e was a very well done example of bringing Mercedes design language into a smaller scale. The CLA did not do the same thing as well, but perhaps it is not fair to compare the work of today’s designers to legends like Mr. Saco.
Does anyone else think the 1991-1994 Nissan Sentra (B13) looks a lot like an Audi 80?
Also – while this is a thought-provoking article, I don’t really see how the Suzuki sedan could copy the BMW E38 if both came out for 1995. The E36 3-Series – maybe.
I followed a matt black Primera last week that had Audi circles on the back something didnt look right I overtook it and figured it out on the way past good disguise I bet he fools a few.
Re: the A4 – they have just revealed the 2017, and it is indeed larger.
Not that you’ll be able to spot the difference between it and 2015 car.
I did not see the design resemblance between the Mercedes 190E and the Ford Sierra Sapphire sedan until today…learning something new every day on CC! I saw a Sierra sedan with Greek license plates in Istanbul about three years ago and was surprised how much smaller, narrower and lower it looked compared to today’s Focus sedan.
Designers don’t get any better than Bruno Sacco. Count me in as a massive fan. Underrated if anything for his work!
Thought about buying a 190 once until: A. Very hard to get in and out of. B. Once in, not very comfortable (6ft, 220lbs at the time). C. The biggest rattle trap short of a Chrysler product. D. Gutless. These cars are junk, from one end to the other. Much happier with my 245 Volvo I bought.
What?! I am 6’3″ and had a 190e 2.6 for 2 years. It did have a cramped rear seat, but I never had any trouble getting in or out, there was absolutely no shortage of power and it never had a single rattle or squeak. A great car, felt as solid as a rock and was very comfortable. I am assuming you actually did drive one? Perhaps it was a very, very poor example. Any suggestion these even remotely resembled Chryslers in any way, especially build quality, is complete and utter rubbish. I shall refrain from making any adverse comments about Volvo 245’s and/or the people who drove them. I don’t have the time and space would not permit!
+ 1
I think his work has had enough recognition and is not underrated, but don’t forget that he’s also resposible for such atrocities as the the W140, which are only forgivable insofar as the original 190 was a masterpiece. I remember very well the first time I saw one in 1983, after having seen pictures – I was shocked! Then I went to Berlin in 1984 and saw the price-sticker at a show-room on Kurfürtendamm and it was quite reasonable, again a shock.
I recently saw a pristine condition 190 on a local street & I was rather struck w/the design. I also noticed how Ford seems to aping the Aston Martin front end on several of its latest models, which I really don’t care about very much
Love the W201.
The A3 I do not like. The belt line is too high, the car too bloated (like practically all new cars). I don’t understand why the author points to FWD as a cause. RWD would give it a longer dash to axle and that’s about it. It would be just as bloated. I believe the cause is pedestrian safety regulations and ever higher h points – many non-enthusiasts like to sit high. Hateful.
The problem I have with Audi design is even if I find some of their current cars somewhat nice, and some of them are, they already look boring and will become even more boring as the time passes. I don’t think any of them will become future classics in terms of design because Audi doesn’t even try to do something different, even the first TT is not that original as it is basically a squashed Beetle. Maybe the A5 will age good, but that’s too little compared to Benz.
I’ve always like dthe 190E and Richard’s explanation helps me understand why. Thanks!
However, personally, I prefer it without the body kit (in the first picture) fitted to the Cosworth 16V version
I didn’t appreciate the W201 when it was new, but maybe it was too subtle for me (I was quite young after all). Looking at it today, I “get” it much more and I can see that it’s a beautiful design in its own right.
The A3 visually recalls the B7 generation of the A4, updated with the current design language. And in size I believe it’s quite close to the B6, is it not? It’s a sharp-looking car, to be sure, though in general I think Audi styling has gone downhill since the high-water mark which occurred around 2002. (The stunning A7 is an exception and I do like the A5 coupe.)