What’s hard to believe is that this design was the product of seasoned designers.
The 1993 Nissan AQ-X has several small and large errors that add up to something of a disaster. But we will learn from this. Being charitable, it’s a packaging car. The rear compartment has stupendous legroom. The doors open wide for easy ingress and, when you need to, egress. Up close the vehicle is finished to a professional standard (I mean at about 10 cm distance). At 10 metres you begin to wonder whether the person who had sketched the car had sketched many cars before this.
What I see is the lumpy, non-homogenous forms of a car that combines elements incorrectly. Proportionally one sees the front part (forward of the B-pillar) as being from a small, tall car. The centre section has a van-like or MPV like quality. Rear of the C-pillar is part of what might be awkward saloon version of a B-class car.
The front view works acceptably. The side views shows the MPV-meets saloon wrongness. It looks very much like the highest point of the roof is behind the B-pillar (though it might not be). The rear view is bland but acceptable. In three-quarter view notice how the lamp outline bumps over the wing-to-bonnet part. The roof is too flat in that view yet the car is characterised by amorphous curves. Apart from the sharp cut on the lower doors.
So, the question is, what happened here? Did an undergraduate get a chance to turn a drawing into a full-size model? It resembles very much the work of a junior designer and I know because in this car I see the kind of things I might have done before I did my MA. These mistakes are part of the learning process. What is odd that Nissan let me get this far.
Source for slideshow: here