Who approves these designs?

 

Here is the 2017 European Corolla.

 

Looking at that, there's no reason the North American Corolla needs to be different, especially the polarizing front we're getting. This is much more of clean timeless design and to American tastes. Half the time, I don't get why automakers spend a bunch of extra money thinking that they need different looks in different markets. Sometimes yes, but most of the time a good design is a good design everywhere. Mercedes doesn't design 5 different S-Class's for 5 different regions. You do it right once.

 

It looks like no one approved this one and it just slipped out the door.

 

That or Akio Toyoda lost a bet...... He probably told someone that we'll make the ugliest cars in the world and people would still buy them.

 

I'm thinking more along these lines. Case in point the new Prius and C-HR suv thingy.

 

Front looks like my father's 2016 RAV4 but of course in a sedan form. Most won't know the difference.

 

Maybe Toyota got tired of being called bland, vanilla, appliance in the US

Unless my taste has really gone downhill, I don't think it's that bad.
Looks like a somewhat mini-avalon.

Mirai on the other hand....I've seen it on the road twice...that overhang

 

Those headlights

 

WHAT headlights? You can barely see them LOL. They look like part of the slit-grille.

 

They are magnificent, very sleek. Shame we miss out on the adaptive LED headlamps those across the pond get. Our government has not revised these '60s-era regulations that limit the kind of headlamp technology we get here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...headlight-rule

 

I learned to drive on 60s-vintage cars. Believe me....there's a BIG difference between the old round sealed-beam incandescent bulbs used back then and even the worst of today's halogen lights. It's true that not every car today has HID or Xenon state-of-the-art bulbs....but that is more of a function of simple economics then from actual government regulations. Not surprisingly, the most advanced headlights tend to be most prevalent in premium-level vehicles......you can't expect a vehicle that sells for $20,000 to have a couple of $800 or $900 bulbs up front. And, even in Audi's case here, according to the article, they are simply calling for a loophole that willl allow them to charge for something even more expensive........$3000 extra (as an option) for matrix-beam lights. IMO, if someone's eyes are so bad that they can't see front of them with even today's HID lights, then they should simply consider not driving at night, whenever possible.

 

I think you're missing the point. The regulation is obsolete and needs to be revisited. The regulation essentially requires a headlamp assembly to have two settings: High and Low. Vehicles equipped with adaptive lighting do not need two settings as it can adapt to oncoming vehicles. The law has not caught up with the technology.

 

Whatever, that gaping maw just looks awful. Like someone tore the front bumper off and left the guts hanging out.

 

Hitting the nail on the head right.

That "low" and "high" beam regulation goes back 50, 60 years when cars had two round sealed beam glass dual filliment bulbs, or 4 sealed beam headlights, where low was two of them on, high was all four of the lights on. Its pretty sad that we are still using this same guideline on today's headlights, despite all the technological innovations in the past 20 years or so in regards to LED's, Xenon, etc.