the appearance of the new Camry

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new cars
which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had bumpers, but
the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the front and back which
seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like older cars on which someone has
removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten around to putting on nerfing bars
(remember them?)
I can't say I like the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body
shop proprietors are gleeful.
Comments?

mack, 10/24/2006,2:10:41 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new
> cars which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had
> bumpers, but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the
> front and back which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like
> older cars on which someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten
> around to putting on nerfing bars (remember them?) I can't say I like
> the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body shop
> proprietors are gleeful. Comments?[/color]

It is very ugly.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
>
> It is very ugly.[/color]

Depends on the angle.

At least it's no Tribeca! <G>

Actually the small windows bother me more. Personally I think matching
bumpers make a car more visable and reduces accidents but I have no proof of
that. But watch cars coming at you next time you are driving. Which are
more visible.... old ones with black bumpers which match the pavement or
newer onces with matching bumpers which contrast the pavement.


"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12jrbj52e1c9r01@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new cars
>which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had bumpers,
>but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the front and back
>which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like older cars on which
>someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten around to putting on
>nerfing bars (remember them?)
> I can't say I like the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body
> shop proprietors are gleeful.
> Comments?
>[/color]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:33:31 -0400, badgolferman wrote:
[color=blue]
> mack, 10/24/2006,2:10:41 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new
>> cars which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had
>> bumpers, but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the
>> front and back which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like
>> older cars on which someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten
>> around to putting on nerfing bars (remember them?) I can't say I like
>> the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body shop
>> proprietors are gleeful. Comments?[/color]
>
> It is very ugly.[/color]

Gee, I though it was 'handsomely aggressive'!

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:uhx%g.1695$6f4.236@trndny01...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:33:31 -0400, badgolferman wrote:
>[color=green]
>> mack, 10/24/2006,2:10:41 AM, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new
>>> cars which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had
>>> bumpers, but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the
>>> front and back which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like
>>> older cars on which someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten
>>> around to putting on nerfing bars (remember them?) I can't say I like
>>> the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body shop
>>> proprietors are gleeful. Comments?[/color]
>>
>> It is very ugly.[/color]
>
> Gee, I though it was 'handsomely aggressive'![/color]

I agree. Better than the previous generation. Not as boring!

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:27:40 -0400, Dave L wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:uhx%g.1695$6f4.236@trndny01...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:33:31 -0400, badgolferman wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> mack, 10/24/2006,2:10:41 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new
>>>> cars which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had
>>>> bumpers, but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the
>>>> front and back which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like
>>>> older cars on which someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten
>>>> around to putting on nerfing bars (remember them?) I can't say I like
>>>> the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body shop
>>>> proprietors are gleeful. Comments?
>>>
>>> It is very ugly.[/color]
>>
>> Gee, I though it was 'handsomely aggressive'![/color]
>
> I agree. Better than the previous generation. Not as boring![/color]

And it actually has some POWER to back up the looks.

Maybe not the fire breather of the Nissan Maxima, but certainly more
reliable and better made (I've owned Nissans, too..)

Dave L, 10/24/2006, 9:27:40 PM,
<gbedndbk9oUWIKPYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:uhx%g.1695$6f4.236@trndny01...[color=green]
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:33:31 -0400, badgolferman wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > mack, 10/24/2006,2:10:41 AM, wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two
> > > > ago, new cars which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED
> > > > like they had bumpers, but the new Camry (for one example) has
> > > > a design to the front and back which seems to not have bumpers,
> > > > and it looks like older cars on which someone has removed the
> > > > bumpers and hasn't gotten around to putting on nerfing bars
> > > > (remember them?) I can't say I like the appearance of no
> > > > bumpers...but I imagine the body shop proprietors are gleeful.
> > > > Comments?
> > >
> > > It is very ugly.[/color]
> >
> > Gee, I though it was 'handsomely aggressive'![/color]
>
> I agree. Better than the previous generation. Not as boring![/color]

The only thing physically better is the drooping exhaust pipe has been
fixed.

I would agree on the windows. I guess it's the trend started by the
Chrysler 300C - vertically-challenged side windows. In the 2007
Camry's I've driven, I find the side-to-side outward visibility not as
good as the previous generation. I found myself crooking my neck all of
the time while merging onto interstates. Looks are subjective, but
although I think the 2007 design will grown on "us," it's not
attractive IMO - especially the rear end. Personally, I liked the
previous generation's exterior design, but I guess I'm in the minority
on that too.


Art wrote:[color=blue]
> Actually the small windows bother me more. Personally I think matching
> bumpers make a car more visable and reduces accidents but I have no proof of
> that. But watch cars coming at you next time you are driving. Which are
> more visible.... old ones with black bumpers which match the pavement or
> newer onces with matching bumpers which contrast the pavement.
>
>
> "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12jrbj52e1c9r01@corp.supernews.com...[color=green]
> >I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but as late as a year or two ago, new cars
> >which have integral bumpers front and back LOOKED like they had bumpers,
> >but the new Camry (for one example) has a design to the front and back
> >which seems to not have bumpers, and it looks like older cars on which
> >someone has removed the bumpers and hasn't gotten around to putting on
> >nerfing bars (remember them?)
> > I can't say I like the appearance of no bumpers...but I imagine the body
> > shop proprietors are gleeful.
> > Comments?
> >[/color][/color]

<w9cw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161872966.234725.222930@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>I would agree on the windows. I guess it's the trend started by the
> Chrysler 300C - vertically-challenged side windows. In the 2007
> Camry's I've driven, I find the side-to-side outward visibility not as
> good as the previous generation. I found myself crooking my neck all of
> the time while merging onto interstates. Looks are subjective, but
> although I think the 2007 design will grown on "us," it's not
> attractive IMO - especially the rear end. Personally, I liked the
> previous generation's exterior design, but I guess I'm in the minority
> on that too.
>
>[/color]

Besides appearance for good or bad, the high window sill and reduced side
glass height make side crash easier because there is more steel protecting
the occupants, side curtain air bags don't have to be as big or travel so
far, and the AC doesn't have to work as hard with less sunlight getting in.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

I'm waiting for the day that flat panel displays are so cheap that cars will
no longer need windows. Just cameras and video screens all around. Of
course, when they sell the first one, and the guy tries to pay a toll it
will be back to the drawing board.


"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:64ea7$4540f71a$44a4a10d$23976@msgid.meganewsservers.com...[color=blue]
>
> <w9cw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1161872966.234725.222930@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>>I would agree on the windows. I guess it's the trend started by the
>> Chrysler 300C - vertically-challenged side windows. In the 2007
>> Camry's I've driven, I find the side-to-side outward visibility not as
>> good as the previous generation. I found myself crooking my neck all of
>> the time while merging onto interstates. Looks are subjective, but
>> although I think the 2007 design will grown on "us," it's not
>> attractive IMO - especially the rear end. Personally, I liked the
>> previous generation's exterior design, but I guess I'm in the minority
>> on that too.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Besides appearance for good or bad, the high window sill and reduced side
> glass height make side crash easier because there is more steel
> protecting the occupants, side curtain air bags don't have to be as big or
> travel so far, and the AC doesn't have to work as hard with less sunlight
> getting in.
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>[/color]