Wednesday Open Mike: Positive Criticism

["Open Mike" is the off-topic editorial page of TOP, and it appears on Wednesday! Yeah, yes it does!]

Slightly off topic, but not really: I had a bit of wicked fun last week maligning the new Lexus RX L for being asshat-fugly, and does it ever deserve it. But it reminded me of something a long-ago girlfriend named Nell Leclaire once told me: hating everything is a cop-out, because it means you're excusing yourself from the hard work of figuring out what's good and what you like.

Very wise. I've never forgotten that.

It's easy (and, let's face it, fun, and also, sometimes, funny) to scoff, scorn, and skewer. But negative criticism is an indulgence. Positive criticism is more difficult—but more courageous and more useful.

Accordingly—as penance, you might say—I wasted a rather ridiculous amount of time last weekend poring over JPEGs of dozens and dozens of SUVs trying to find some really good-looking designs, to counterbalance my slagging off of the RX L. Yes, I know this was useless labor, but I felt a certain...obligation. Understand, I don't care for SUVs...I briefly owned one, but I've only ever driven two. I mildly disapprove of their excess, their aggression, and, despite the name, their lack of sportiness: if you ask me they are station wagons without the stigma. Or minivans without the stigma. Not my kind of motor vehicle.

Prehistoric SUV. (Or "UV.") We're still there, they're just taller now.

And as befits a category with "utility" in its very moniker, many of them look like truckish ugly ducks with style tacked on as an afterthought—appliances that struggle against anonymity. In terms of design, most SUVs are pretty forlorn and dulling to the senses. Aesthetically lumpen. Anyway, long story short, my finalists were the Volvo XC60, above left, an extremely handsome vehicle let down only by the quirk of having its taillight running up the C-pillar, which is a small thing that doesn't detract from a highly successful design. And here for whatever it's worth is my winner:

The Mazda CX-9.

It surprises me in several ways. First, I didn't expect Mazda's design language to scale up so gracefully; second, it doesn't put a foot wrong—there's essentially no jarring note anywhere, however trifling; and third, it even manages a certain elegance, which I would have thought was pretty much excluded by the SUV concept out of the gate.

Foolish errand
Talk about useless labor—I even went to look at one in person, to be sure my critical judgement wasn't out of whack from looking at pictures rather than sheet metal. They're handsome in real life, too. (That's when the CX-9 became the second SUV I've ever driven—I took a test drive.)

Here are some positive reasons why I like it:

1. It doesn't try too hard. The world is crowded these days; competition in all things is fierce; and people in many fields are struggling to be noticed. This leads to over-the-top, garish, and "added-on" styling elements, busy designs, and a culture that normalizes excess.
2. It has beautiful proportions. The ultimate automotive example of bad proportions might be the delightfully bad AMC Gremlin, my brother Scott's first automotive love (my father used to like to joke, "he drove the ass off that car"). Proportion is overlooked in many areas of design, not just cars—even book design, as we were talking about yesterday, even though it's an art in which proportion should be at the forefront. Although the front overhang of the CX-9 is a little much in traditional terms, in these times it's fine. There's not a hint of poor proportion otherwise.
3. It's restrained. Although a huge vehicle by my lights, it's actually on the compact side for a three-row SUV. And in a subdued color it's as elegant and conservative as a Brooks Brothers suit. I bet it will age well.
4. The front end—biggest opportunity on most cars for forthright styling—is distinctive yet tasteful, two things that are difficult to pull off in tandem. In terms of traditionalism, again, the badge—the Mazda bird-in-flight (did you know it's not actually an "M"? True)—is a little big, but the front end manages all that acreage it has to cover with grace. As any Lexus will show, not a trifling accomplishment.
5. The tires actually have some sidewall. I detest beyond expression the current fad for "wagon-wheel and rubber-band" wheels-and-tires (see inset). Like ice cream on a bad filling for me. Talk about bad proportions—this fashion is an obvious distortion. The CX-9's design—not to mention its ride comfort—could have been significantly crippled by excessively large wheels.
6. Works in many colors. Some front ends have such strong elements on the front end—holes, grilles, and gills—that they become too graphic when the paint is white or light-colored, so you'd be forced to get the car in a dark color to downplay that. I looked at a number of CX-9s at the dealership and it carries off its good looks in both light and dark paint.

And by the way, it drives quite nicely, at least if you go in with low expectations like I did—even though it conforms to the maxim "all Mazdas are underpowered*." I'd have no objection to owning and driving one, although it's above my pay grade and I barely have need for two seats, never mind nineteen or whatever the a three-row SUV has.

But back on point, here's the takeaway: when you find yourself "hating," or running something down, try doing due duty and flipping it around—by finding a positive example and articulating, even if only to yourself, why it's good. That's how personal growth in terms of your critical faculties will happen, how your aesthetic sense will sharpen. It's a far harder task in any kind of criticism.

Now, enough with the car posts!

Mike

*The company might be readying its second-ever exception to that rule, after the unruly Mazdaspeed3: it's putting the 250 horsepower turbo four from this CX-9 (which has 310 lb-ft of torque at a low 2000 rpm) into an upgraded Mazda6 sedan for 2018. Seems about a perfect match to me. I'd take it in Soul Red.

 

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "I spoke with my wallet. After testing SUVs from Volvo (the refreshed XC60 hadn't yet hit market), Mazda (the CX-9 was pretty, but too large and family oriented with three seat rows), Audi (Q5 too small; Q7 too big, and both ubiquitous) and Porsche Macan (most expensive, not entirely practical, and driver interface like airplane cockpit with 30 or so buttons), I finally settled on the Jaguar F-Pace (2017). Perfect size, last of the V6 supercharged engines, and regular compliments from observers (discontinued, but elegant Tempest Grey...and real sidewalls)."

Mike says: Yes indeed, the F-Pace is a handsome vehicle.

Comments

[John Krumm]

Mazda has been pretty consistent with good looks. Now I'd like to see them also become a leader in fuel efficiency and carbon emissions. These days the average car should be around 80 mpg, and manufacturers should be bragging about it when they do better than that. Instead we still see horsepower wars.

[The Terrified Dad]

Fun exercise! I currently own an SUV, but that is only because I am not rich. If I was rich I would own a pickup, a sporty sedan, a small motorhome, and a tractor. Now my 2005 Lexus GX470 does the work of all four in a mediocre manner.

Back to the task at hand...I don't like many current model SUVs, but do think that the Ford Explorer looks pretty good. My father in law recently acquired one and I like the way it drives as well.

[Herman Krieger]

Since the late 1940s, I've owned various cars including a Ford Model A, a Lasalle, an Austin a40, a Volvo 544, and a Citroen DS. But the car that I have the fondest memory of is the 1937 LaSalle Coupe.


I now drive a Toyota Camry.

[Kodachromeguy]

Mike, I agree with you!! The Lexus RX L and most other contemporary trendy crossover/SUV play trucklets ARE asshat-fugly. They have so many problems, it is hard to list them.
1. They are example of poor engineering: large bulk, mass, and resource use for surprisingly minimal passenger and cargo capacity. Good engineering is the opposite: minimal material use to accomplish the goal safely and economically.
2. They are tall for the sake of making their drivers feel powerful and mighty and therefore block the view of other drivers at stop lights or street corners.
3. They appeal to the worst of our consumer society. "I don't give a crap about anyone else so I'll buy the biggest and baddest crossover regardless of the resource use and inconvenience to anyone else. I'm the only one who counts."
4. Most are so complicated and electronic-laden, they are difficult to troubleshoot/maintain/repair long term and therefore are destined for crushing soon after the original factory warrantee runs out.
5. They are fraud-mobiles: not really sporty, not really roomy, not really with much utility except for the two front seat occupants. But they sure make their drivers feel invincible.
6. Their poor ergonomic design requires engineering solutions like backup cameras and stability control to attempt to mitigate factors like high center of gravity and slit-like rear windows.
I better stop now and go take some photographs.

[John Camp]

It is a pretty vehicle, and Car and Driver ranks it first among mid-sized cross-overs and SUVs. It's also relatively affordable -- in top trim, according to C&D, it costs $45,255, about half of the most expensive vehicle rated in the group (Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, a losing proposition if there ever was one.) However, the Mazda really is a station wagon, and if I'm going to buy a station wagon, I'd like to have it look like one (like the BMW 3 series, a really elegant looking vehicle, IMHO; they look especially good when driven by a 40-ish blonde with LA sunglasses and diamond stud earrings.) A genuine SUV is built on a light truck frame and has substantial off-road ability. They're really made to haul stuff, rather than people (Chevy Suburban.) The fact that some of them are made to function as school buses and haul soccer teams around, rather than stuff, doesn't diminish the fact that you can put a sheet of 4x8 plywood inside and take it home. Bet you can't do that with the Mazda, pretty as it is. And if I were going to buy a cross-over like the Mazda, I'd probably go for a Porsche Cayenne, which I think is just as pretty, but in a more rugged way.

[John Krill]

The one vehicle that comes to mind is the Honda Element. I think it is a good looking small general purpose transportation. I think it looks like the vehicle it is. But everyone I know hates it. Go figure.

I was considering buying an Element. A friend works on computers and the Element allows him to get into places that a standard SUV can't. Here in Laguna Beach you really need a small vehicle to get through our old and narrow streets.

But the Element had two problems according to various sources. Bad gas mileage and hard on tires so I never got one and now they've been out of production for a few years.

Then I ended up with a PT Cruiser. And I think it is ugly, gets lousy mileage and goes through tires. It also is no longer in production.

Note that the Cruiser and Element were never improved in any way. And that says it all.

[Gert-Jan]

Complaining is easy, everybody can do that. Coming up with constructive suggestions for improvements is much harder but also more rewarding in the end.

[Lindsay Bach]

I've owned three Mazda's over the past 14 years: a 2000 extended cab, B3000 pickup truck, and two Tributes (2002 and 2004). The 2004 is my current vehicle. The truck met my needs to pull my 19'foot sailboat on thousand mile trips and perform light utility work with ease but carrying luggage in the open bed on trips always put it at risk from the weather. The Tributes (essentially the same as Ford Escapes),which I opted for when I decided that I really no longer needed a truck, ironically came with bigger wheels, a lot more horsepower, and a lot less utility than the truck. Both pulled the boat with ease but they are somewhat overpowered, less fuel efficient and without much in the way of real cabin space. As I am fond of saying, they are "longer in the sport and shorter in the utility." I agree, SUVs are a pretty goofy design and ultimately an artifact of automakers' efforts to beat the CAFE standards and sucker consumers into driving what are essentially tricked-out trucks. With that said, I love Mazda's for their generally great reliability.

[Stan B.]

And those are still butt ugly- but then, most cars nowadays, foreign or domestic are butt ugly! Even the MINI Cooper SUV version is fugly, and if that wasn't bad enough, one of the few good looking cars of the last several years- the Mini Cooper itself has been fuglified into one cheap looking disaster.

I rather sing the praises of what I like than put down what I don't- ya just don't get to do much of the former, in this life.

[Steve Rosenbum]

I own a 2014 Mazda 6 in Soul Red and, I have to say, I've really come to love the car. It is absolutely beautiful--I have never owned a car where people I don't know regularly walk up to me to say how much they like the looks of the car and to ask me about it. Also, I really like the way it drives, which surprised me. Yes, it has a 4 cylinder engine so it doesn't exactly scream off the line, but, once the car is in motion it is fun to drive. I think that the engineers who designed these Mazdas are people that love to drive and have cranked that into the design. The car has excellent road feel, the steering is responsive, the frame is stiff enough, the suspension is just right, the transmission is perfectly matched to the rest of the drive train, and the end result is that it puts a smile on my face. Add in a stylish/comfortable interior, a great audio system, and 38 miles/gallon on the highway without resorting to a hybrid or diesel, and its a great total package. Way better than its Camry/Accord/etc. competition.

[Michael]

Agreed, the Mazda 6 sedan is a superb exercise in styling — and with a combination of low-end torque and significant horsepower it should be a world class sedan. This from guy who is still mourning the loss of his 2012 Miata, traded in of necessity to upgrade the 13-year-old Honda CRV to a new one for my wife’s daily use and frequent trips. As with cameras and lenses, truly prudent decisions may not add a lot of zing to life.

[cdembrey]

I love SUVs. So does the rest of my family. They work well in snow country, aa well as desert terrain. My wife's 1978 4WD Chevy Suburban 's interior was huge—and my son's Boy Scout troop would fill-it-up with bicycles and camping gear. Both her Suburban, and my 1974 4WD Toyota FJ40 Land Cruiser pulled a 21 foot travel-trailer on many family camping trips. When we lived in the California high-desert there were plenty of days when we needed those 4WDs to get to work—and to get the kids to-and-from school. BTW did I mention the the large interiors are great for hauling fresh melons, pumpkins and salad-greens from farms on the east-side, peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots and honey from Littlerock and cherries and nuts from Leona Valley.

We all have our likes and dislikes—me, I could never live in a place that didn't have palm-trees. Your-milage-does-vary 8-)

[Christopher Crawford]

SUVs are not called Sport Utility Vehicles because they're fast and maneuverable like a sports car.

The "Sports" in the name refers to their original purpose, before they were bastardized into overpriced luxury cars.

SUVs were originally for hunters and fishermen to carry their gear in. They were four wheel drive and set high off the ground because outdoorsmen often drove them on rough roads or off-road to get to hunting and fishing spots, and they had big engines to allow pulling a boat trailer.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

At the risk of going OT on your OT - in my humble opinion, too many SUVs are trying to look like an SUV - all S and no U. I bought a Subaru Forester in manual (stick?) in order to have 4 wheels doing the driving, plus high/low range, when driving out to the start of bush walks (trail head?). 2 wheel drives just won’t do it. It’s not a proper off-road 4 wheel drive vehicle, but it suits my needs. At least it did until our child came along :) Now it has the child seat, because the extra height makes it easier to get kids in and out without breaking one’s back.

[anthony]

You're setting a good example, Mike. Though some might say you were just "dickin around", I think you were in pursuit of something well worth your (and our) time. The world would be a better place if we took up Nell's challenge more often.

[Ernie Van Veen]

Sorry, most SUVs, including the Mazda to a somewhat lesser extent, look like overinflated balloon versions of their relative hatch or sedan stablemates - with overinflated price tags to match. The only exception being the Tesla Model X. Only $200,000 here in Australia. I'm off to the shop.

[Jim Hamstra]

Mike
I agree with you on the wagon-wheel and rubber-band fad. As a kid back on the farm I remember the wagons, such as the manure spreader had metal wheels. Then the state said they couldn't be driven on paved roads with those wheels so we used metal wheels with about an inch or so rubber tread glued on. Now we see 700HP muscle cares with these manure spreader wheels. Only difference is that now they are chromed or just painted black.

[Daniel]

Older early 70's VW rabbit diesels. Go most anywhere other than the real need for a 4x4. Fuel mileage in the high 40's/low 50's per gallon. Insurance is low and the vehicles just run and run and run. Either the sedan or the pickup - they are simple to mainain.

[Jim]

Don't get too excited about that hopped up mazda6. It doesn't come with anything but a slushbox automatic tranny with that motor. So sad. No stick no sale.

[Jim A]

I realize this isn't in the spirit of the post but...there's a scene in an old episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee where Jerry starts a 1974 Gremlin and Jon Stewart says, "That...is the sound of virginity."

[Richard Alan Fox]

Please don’t laugh, but I love my Honda van.
Plenty of room for people or paintings, and the side doors slide open with a button push.
King of the road.

[Goff]

Don't forget the RangeRover - father of all SUVs.
Mine was the last model before BMW and Tata messed them up.
It even has a proper chassis. Not the modern monocoque rubbish
17 years old and still taking the family and all our photo kit effortlessly off-road through the Maritime Alps.
Great drive, feels stable in the trickiest situation.
AND IT IS THE BEST LOOKING SUV.
Goff

[beuler]

Mazda is on a roll where design is concerned. Their whole range is using the same design language and it works on every model. In my part of the globe an Audi Q7 or Volvo XC90 are obnoxioulsy big (even though many drive them) so the Mazda CX-5 is the most popular SUV from the brand.

The recently released Alfa Romeo Stelvio is set to give the Jaguar F-pace a run for the money. Yes, I know, SUVs from Alfa and Jaguar... Last week I saw the first TV add for a Mercedes pick-up truck, so I guess Rolls-Royce sub-compact econo-car can't be too far off.

[Bob Cook]

I rented a Volvo XC60 for Thanksgiving week. It's one of those devices working overtime to tell me what I should do, and how I should do it. Totally frustrating. It may look good, but quickly lost it's charm when I realized that "auto on and off" was the default, and you must navigate through three screens to change from AM to FM.

I'll be ordering another Ford Flex - just an ugly toaster on wheels, but at least it lets me drive the car, not the other way around.

[Lee Rust]

Just this morning I parked next to some kind of Lexus SUV at the local Dunkin' Donuts and paused for just a moment to regard it with a mixture of amazement and dismay. I was reminded once again why I still drive a 2001 Jeep Cherokee (my third one). Nice looking, comfortable, not too big or tall, totally functional, tows 5000 lbs. I can get the lawnmower in the back or tie things on the roof rack without a stepladder. It even bears a passing resemblance to the Volvo 140 station wagons of yore.

[Dan Doviddio]

I'm on my second BMW 3 Series wagon. I'd still be on my first one if it hadn't got rear ended. Such a practical fun to drive car. Not too bad price-wise if you don't load it up too much.

I saw a Cadilac Escalade the other day with huge wheels and as about as low as you can go sidewall tires. First impression was a stage coach. Kind of cheesy.

[Dan]

There's one other exception to "all Mazdas are underpowered" - some versions of the RX-7 and RX-8 - only 200-250 horsepower, but light cars with sub-6 second 0-60 times... Slower than a Porsche 911 of the same vintage, but about the same as a 928 or 944.

[bt]

I am on my 2nd mazda 6 and my wife and I have owned 6 Mazdas them between us (going back to a CLC I had in college)

They have always looked good. The latest ones look even better.

But my 2016 6 gets excellent mpg for it's size, non-hybrid. Never less than 30 mpg. high 30's in mixed driving if you take it easy. Straight line on a highway over 40 mpg is pretty easy. And it has such excellent road feel. I could have gotten it with a stick-shift but the mileage penalty seems to have finally gone away, so I went for the old man automatic.

Great cars, as you know, Mike, and always well-priced. It's like belonging to a cult.

[David Boyce]

In my heart I now that there is only one "SUV" I could ever own.

A Landrover Defender 110.

[Now THAT'S an SUV. --Mike]

[JohnMFlores]

The one thing that I like about SUVs is that I can use my favorite word when discussing them - avoirdupois.

[Michael MCKee]

I am appreciating these posts on esthetics. They may be off topic, but all design choices are ultimately linked.
I'm shopping for a new SUV. I want something with AWD and highish ground clearance. The Honda CRV ticks all the right boxes at the best price. And, I just can't pull the trigger. It looks like a hawk with s balloon welded to the back end. I would hate a perfectly functional vehicle until it wore out, which for a Honda might be a long time.

[Inaki]

Contrary to our Humble Editor, what I would be looking for a car is character. And as such, many of the current market offerings are lacking that, or are suffering from the German Success Syndrome [GSS]. And nowadays, everything looks as if having just a tad too much aesthetic surgery. They all look as if trying too hard: charachter lines, stretched lines and sliced and pinched too much. The last car I truly was smitten by was the Renault Megane II, itself derived aesthetically from the Renault Avantime. I do understand it is a very difficult aesthetic language to swallow in the USA. However, the Renault Megane II was a runaway success in Europe. It oozed character. It still does not look old 14 years later. And, it is a very french way to look and go around aesthetics [it was a good car to drive, in a very french way. Soft, but very stable].

For some reason, we are still attached to the concept of freedom and possesion a car has. A success comparative tool, as well. As an industry, they are trying too hard to move to MAAS [mobility as a service], a kind of Adobe Subscription model.

Luckily enough, I don´t need to own a car. Nor I want to. I discovered the luxury of not having to have a car.