The Most Beautiful Present-Day Production Car?

[IMST]

Inspired by the most beautiful car ever thread, which I'm still trying to think of an answer to, I thought I'd create another for current production cars: ones that a normal person could go buy today.

My vote, which I expect to be thoroughly critisized for, is the Chevrolet Cobalt (http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/colors/).

I love the grace of the simplicity in its design. It says to me that it will get me where I need to go at a reasonable rate of speed. I couldn't ask for any more in a car.

[Hokulele]

By "ones that a normal person could go buy today", are you putting a price cap on the nominees? There are any number of gorgeous cars that are in production that are waaaaaaaay beyond the price of my house, much less my budget.

[IMST]

By "ones that a normal person could go buy today", are you putting a price cap on the nominees? There are any number of gorgeous cars that are in production that are waaaaaaaay beyond the price of my house, much less my budget.

Let's make the price of Hokulele's house the cap.

But, more seriously, I'd aim for a car that you could reasonably expect to find at a dealership in any major city in a country the car is distributed. So an Audi R8, though 6 figures US, would probably be in. A Maybach 62 on the other hand, probably wouldn't.

[madurobob]

Well, eye of the beholder and all that - I think this one is pretty cool:
http://www.aptera.com/

[Hokulele]

Let's make the price of Hokulele's house the cap.

But, more seriously, I'd aim for a car that you could reasonably expect to find at a dealership in any major city in a country the car is distributed. So an Audi R8, though 6 figures US, would probably be in. A Maybach 62 on the other hand, probably wouldn't.


Well, that certainly eliminates the Alfa 8C I was thinking of.


ETA: madurobob, CUTE!

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, the problem is, I'm a sucka for the redheads with the prancing horse badge, so I'd end up nominating pretty much their entire lineup.

I've always thought that the Mercedes SL series was a pretty hot lookin' car. As well as the Bimmer M5/6. As an aside, you can tell my general life problems from just this one post here: Filet Mignon appetite, hamburger budget. :(

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, eye of the beholder and all that - I think this one is pretty cool:
http://www.aptera.com/

That's not a car! That's what happens when a droid from Star Wars marries an iMac.

;):D

[madurobob]

That's not a car! That's what happens when a droid from Star Wars marries an iMac.

;):D

You have to envision it with that iridescent paint that changes color depending on viewing angle and the front wheel cowls cut back to reveal the spinners.

:)

[ElMondoHummus]

You have to envision it with that iridescent paint that changes color depending on viewing angle and the front wheel cowls cut back to reveal the spinners.

:)

Ok, so it'd be a flamboyant droid marrying a colorful iMac...

:D:p;)

[IMST]

That's not a car! That's what happens when a droid from Star Wars marries an iMac.

;):D

You have to envision it with that iridescent paint that changes color depending on viewing angle and the front wheel cowls cut back to reveal the spinners.

:)

Ok, so it'd be a flamboyant droid marrying a colorful iMac...

:D:p;)

Either way, the religious are against it.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, seeing as how I managed to accidentally yet successfully derail this thread :o I guess it's up to me to rerail it. So, anyway:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1238649ac8cab6e340.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15481)

Mercedes McLaren, done over by Brabus.

Sorry, but I refuse to be beholden to the price-cap here, mainly because I think just about every car that I or Hokulele can actually afford are ugly to butt-ugly. So I'm doing a "sky's the limit" thing here. Anyway, I'm not overly fond of the Mercedes Mac, but for some odd reason, what little Brabus (an aftermarket tuner) does to the car just makes it pretty damn hot!

If I suddenly became ridiculously rich, I wouldn't mind having one of these parked next to the Ferrari.

ETA: Blaaaah! I just realized that I might have violated the OP. Do we think that a car done over by a tuner counts as a "production" one? I can argue that either way. If we agree that it's not, well... I still vote for it 'cause I'm a jerk :D, but the rest of you all can sit in democratic consensus on the question. ;)

[Magyar]

well, in that case I think this is hte cats meow :)


http://robson.m3rlin.org/cars/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/bugatti_veyron_164_2002_1.jpg
bugatti veyron 16.4 and IF there was a place where I could actually drive this thing on a regular basis, I would probably figre out a way to buy one.

[Hokulele]

Sorry, but I refuse to be beholden to the price-cap here, mainly because I think just about every car that I or Hokulele can actually afford are ugly to butt-ugly.


My car is not butt-ugly! :mad:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508349aca4eef1498.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15484)

[tyr_13]

I like my old car, a 95 Dodge Intrepid in a color labeled 'wild orchad' (also what I named my car) which is a deep shade of purple.

My new car, not so much. It's a 95 Dodge Intrepid SE in white, basecoat gray, and rust.

What can I say? $1,000 doesn't get you much.

[paximperium]

Sorry while a marvel of engineering, the Veyron is a butt ugly car.

I nominate the Ferrari 599
http://www.zcars.com.au/images/novitec-rosso-ferrari-599-gtb1.jpg
and the BMW 2010 Z4
http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/BMW/Z4/spy/z4_render.jpg

[tyr_13]

How come I don't fit into the pretty things. :(

[paximperium]

How come I don't fit into the pretty things. :(
Well...I think of your looks like how I think of the Veyron's :D
Too bad for the giants of this world...let the little people drive the nice cars.

[Damien Evans]

http://www.psp-themes.net/data/media/12/Ford%20Falcon%20FPV%20GT%20Theme.jpg

40th anniversary Falcon GT Cobra.

[tyr_13]

Well...I think of your looks like how I think of the Veyron's :D
Too bad for the giants of this world...let the little people drive the nice cars.

I probably could have worded that better...

[paximperium]

I probably could have worded that better...
It could've been worst, I could've easily misconstrued "pretty things" to mean women...:jaw-dropp

Ahhh...cars and penis jokes.

[Just thinking]

Well, not too many mentions of TVR in these car threads, so ...

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/10/tvr_tusc.jpg

... but getting back to Maserati ...

http://jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/02/maserati_gt_coupe.jpg

[Just thinking]

My car is not butt-ugly! :mad:

Sorry ... butt it is.

And just in case you think I don't know from butt-ugly ...

http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/8827855/p111570_large+2002_Pontiac_Aztec_SRV+Front_Passeng er_Side

[Hokulele]

Sorry ... it is.


Oh yeah? Show us your butt so we can compare. :cool:

[Just thinking]

Oh yeah? Show us your butt so we can compare. :cool:

OK ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/LinkCrow/CarZ/Nissan300ZXMark86T.jpg

:)

[paximperium]

A Nissan 300Z...ahhh a classic...not bad for an old clunker...its not pretty but I wouldn't call it ugly either.

[Hokulele]

OK ...


I will admit, custom wheels and ground effects would improve anyone's butt. :p

[malbui]

I semi-seriously considered buying a recent Maserati Quattroporte last year - a quite astonishingly good-looking car.

[IMST]

Sorry ... butt it is.

And just in case you think I don't know from butt-ugly ...

http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/8827855/p111570_large+2002_Pontiac_Aztec_SRV+Front_Passeng er_Side

Ah, Pontiac's most embarrassing mistake to date. Of course, adding the Holden Ute to the lineup this fall promises to be worse.

[timhau]

Let's throw all budgetary considerations aside, OK?

http://www.freefoto.com/images/29/42/29_42_22---Bentley-Continental-GT_web.jpg

Bentley Continental GT. Looks even better in real life.

[The Don]

Not ugly, yet somewhat affordable:

Alfa Romeo Breara (http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB240GB240&q=alfa+brera&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=_vWsSZaLDIzFjAfs452lBg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)

Having fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down: the Ssanyong Rhodius

[Damien Evans]

Ah, Pontiac's most embarrassing mistake to date. Of course, adding the Holden Ute to the lineup this fall promises to be worse.

How? They'll actualy have at least 1 decent car in the lineup then.

[Just thinking]

I will admit, custom wheels and ground effects would improve anyone's butt. :p

Aww, c'mon ... don't take what I say too seriously. I'm just not a fan of generic styling ... besides, I used to own a '73 Gremlin. No joke --- but I'll be the first to admit it's not great looking. ;)

Heck, I like the styling on my Z more than the current crop.

[Just thinking]

A Nissan 300Z...ahhh a classic...not bad for an old clunker...its not pretty but I wouldn't call it ugly either.

Thank you. One nice thing about that car ... it has an engine that is way underpowered --- with modest work it can easily top 300 HP. Many have gotten well over 400.

[NoZed Avenger]

With no budgetary constraints, I still lean towards Aston Martins and one or two Bentleys.

On a more affordable level, the VW CC looks pretty nice, and I do like the new Hyundai Genesis Coupe.

[Delvo]

Almost everybody so far is talking about cars that were designed for ludicrous speed which almost never would be used in real life (and would be spectacularly stupid or evil when it is). To me, they all look the same, and fairly silly. I prefer a car that's not trying to pretend it's meant for something else other than a car's actual job. Fortunately, that's a lot of the not-ridiculously-expensive models.

To try to narrow it down beyond that, there are a couple of features I like to see that do add a bit of extra function to the car. One is a tall back end instead of a separate trunk, usually with a hatch but it could use doors instead. That one little change, especially combined with folding and removable rear seats, really expands the range of stuff you can carry without having to alter anything else about the vehicle. I recently moved and brought everything with me in several trips with a PT Cruiser, including the couch. (That was the only thing that didn't let me close the hatch, but it still stuck out only about a foot and a half, so it was still closer to closed than opened.) Other cars with feature include Toyota's Yaris and Matrix, VW's Golf/GTI, Nissan's Versa, Chevy's Aveo, Scion's xB and xD, and Mazda's Mazda3, MazdaSpeed3, CX-7, and CX-9, although some of those might offset it by just being too small and/or boxy.

Another nifty function to add to a car is a convertible roof, but ragtops tend to have poor thermal and sonic insulation, be damage-prone and probably troublesome to fix (because they're uncommon), and attract vandals. So only a hard top would add the benefit of convertibility without sacrificing some good practical aspects of a solid non-convertible top. And as far as I know, among current production cars, that narrows it down to Mazda Miata or Pontiac G6. (Miatas were softies until a few years ago, but have now changed to solid convertibles.)

[Scootch]

What do people think of the Dodge Charger. I thought they were the baddest looking new cars around, until I saw the Challenger.http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/ (http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/)

[Telluride]

I'd I have to give my vote to the current Ford Mustang (preferably a GT or GT500, but they all essentially look the same).

[Esperdome]

What do people think of the Dodge Charger. I thought they were the baddest looking new cars around, until I saw the Challenger.http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/ (http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/)


The SRT 8 was on my shopping list before the economy tanked. :(

[IMST]

How? They'll actualy have at least 1 decent car in the lineup then.

While that's true, the decent car will be the G3 and they'll still be saddled with the Ute.

[Just thinking]

Almost everybody so far is talking about cars that were designed for ludicrous speed which almost never would be used in real life (and would be spectacularly stupid or evil when it is).

Really? High horsepower and/or torque quickly become desirable when trying to merge onto high speed roadways in traffic that have far too little space in which to do so. Performance is measured in more ways than just maximum miles-per-hour. Also, the definition of "sports car" is a vehicle than can be both driven at the track and then used to go home in after events. And that is real life for many people, I assure you. Plus, many high performance cars have much better safety features not found on daily drivers --- excellent braking and handling to just name two. I find it much better to have a car that can avoid idiots on the road as opposed to having one that's only good at protecting you after it's too late. But, that's just me.

To me, they all look the same, and fairly silly. I prefer a car that's not trying to pretend it's meant for something else other than a car's actual job. Fortunately, that's a lot of the not-ridiculously-expensive models.

Whenever a person claims all cars look the same ... well, that's when I begin taking their automotive comments with grains of salt.

To try to narrow it down beyond that, there are a couple of features I like to see that do add a bit of extra function to the car. One is a tall back end instead of a separate trunk, usually with a hatch but it could use doors instead. That one little change, especially combined with folding and removable rear seats, really expands the range of stuff you can carry without having to alter anything else about the vehicle.

How about the Audi A4 Avant (http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/Audi/Spy_Shots/A4/AUDI_A4_Avant_main.jpg)?

Another nifty function to add to a car is a convertible roof, but rag tops tend to have poor thermal and sonic insulation, be damage-prone and probably troublesome to fix (because they're uncommon), and attract vandals. So only a hard top would add the benefit of convertibility without sacrificing some good practical aspects of a solid non-convertible top. And as far as I know, among current production cars, that narrows it down to Mazda Miata or Pontiac G6. (Miatas were softies until a few years ago, but have now changed to solid convertibles.)

Convertibles are for those who like what they have to offer --- they are not for everybody. They never were designed to be. There are many aspects that go into designing cars, and customer demand is certainly one of them. Many people like those very things you seem to dislike about convertibles, and it seems the things you dislike about them is what makes them convertibles in the traditional sense. Practicality is not the main objective in that class of vehicle. True, to their credit some manufacturers have gone the route of the convertible hard top --- but that's usually at a cost of more dollars and vehicle weight. But there are those that still feel the traditional way to go is with a soft top --- perhaps even manually operated. Hey, I even prefer rear wheel drive, the way God intended for cars to be made. ;)

[Patricio Elicer]

well, in that case I think this is hte cats meow :)


http://robson.m3rlin.org/cars/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/bugatti_veyron_164_2002_1.jpg
bugatti veyron 16.4 and IF there was a place where I could actually drive this thing on a regular basis, I would probably figre out a way to buy one.


Yeah, I don't think I'll ever buy one of those because there's no place to take it to its top speed :D

407 km/hr (253 mi/hr) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o)

[ElMondoHummus]

My car is not butt-ugly! :mad:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1508349aca4eef1498.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15484)

Remember, I gave a range. You've only eliminated one end of that. ;):D:scarper:

:duck: HEHEEEEE!

[IMST]

I like Hok's Acura. Same kind of thing as my love for the Chevy: Simple, clean and functional.

[Disbelief]

The Cadillac CTS. Great looking car, inside and out, coupled with great performance.

[Hokulele]

Aww, c'mon ... don't take what I say too seriously. I'm just not a fan of generic styling ... besides, I used to own a '73 Gremlin. No joke --- but I'll be the first to admit it's not great looking. ;)

Heck, I like the styling on my Z more than the current crop.


Nah, I wasn't taking it seriously. :) Beauty. Eye of the beholder. All that stuff. I agree, I like the styling of the 300 much better than the 350. Although I always felt the Mazda RX-7 gave them a run for their money in the looks department, and those gave you the opportunity to say "Wankel" on a regular basis.

Give me a coupe/hatchback over a sedan for looks any day of the week.

[madurobob]

Oh man, I HATE the design of Cadillacs over the past few years. Those big angular front grills, straight lines.. and that bobbed tail of the CTS - they bug me. They put me in mind of some sort of post-modern industrialized version of what a car should be. Give me curves, please.

[Disbelief]

Oh man, I HATE the design of Cadillacs over the past few years. Those big angular front grills, straight lines.. and that bobbed tail of the CTS - they bug me. They put me in mind of some sort of post-modern industrialized version of what a car should be. Give me curves, please.

Why, so you can look like everyone else? I love the change, especially since they gave it great performance instead of the crap they had been putting out.

[madurobob]

Why, so you can look like everyone else? I love the change, especially since they gave it great performance instead of the crap they had been putting out.

I agree the engineering is top-notch, I just prefer it in a good looking car ;)

[paximperium]

Thank you. One nice thing about that car ... it has an engine that is way underpowered --- with modest work it can easily top 300 HP. Many have gotten well over 400.
Well similar to the early civics from the 1990s, the Z's engine is near indestructible. You can turbo or supercharge the fellas until it glows red hot and it'll still run...ahhhh, favorite clunker of modders and tuners all around.

[paximperium]

Why, so you can look like everyone else? I love the change, especially since they gave it great performance instead of the crap they had been putting out.
While I can easily appreciate the engineering and improvement of the current crop of Cadillacs, especially the Cadillac CTS-V, I'm not a big fan of the boxy look.

[paximperium]

I like Hok's Acura. Same kind of thing as my love for the Chevy: Simple, clean and functional.
Psssst...I believe the Acura it is suppose to be: sporty, aggressive and cool.

[Hokulele]

Psssst...I believe the Acura it is suppose to be: sporty, aggressive and cool.


Well, I never really thought of it as agressive, and it is front-wheel drive which makes it a bit less sporty, but anything that shifts as cleanly, has a great power-to-weight ratio, decent fuel-efficiency, and can fit a 9' surfboard is definitely cool.

[IMST]

Psssst...I believe the Acura it is suppose to be: sporty, aggressive and cool.

Just because they haven't succeeded at all that doesn't mean it's not pretty.

[paximperium]

Say hello to the super sporty modded EXTREME Toyota Prius...sorry, I just vomited in my mouth...
http://www.treehugger.com/extreme-toyota-prius-01.jpg

[Delvo]

High horsepower and/or torque quickly become desirable when trying to merge onto high speed roadways...or to get ahead of the cars next to you after a red light goes green if you need to shift lanes within the next block... or to pass a slow vehicle in a relatively short amount of space before you'd need to get back in the right lane. I know this, and I've done such things before, in normal cars. But normal cars already have enough extra capacity (above and beyond the way they're normally driven most of the time) to do that with. That's within a normal driving pattern, which doesn't need a car shaped like a bubbly/melting wedge to do. I know the wedgemobiles can do it faster than my Cruiser or the Horizon & Sable that I first learned to drive in, but over the relatively short amount of time that such things happen in, it's a small difference (and wanting every last little bit of it you could get would indicate a dangerously aggressive attitude about driving, or perhaps a lack of understanding of how much acceleration a "regular" car can do). And the sacrifices that are made for it (from purchase price to fuel efficiency to cargo capacity to ease & costs of maintenance to ride comfort to floor & ceiling heights to noise level) are significant.

Of course, you might say "But what do those things have to do with looks? We're just talking about looks, not all the other stuff you'd think about when choosing a car.". But no look is inherently good or bad; the asthetic standard by which one is judged good or bad is determined by something else. For those who like the wedgemobiles' looks, that determinor of the standard, the thing that makes that look look good to them, must be based on the "sports" performance traits that the vehicle's appearance evokes. So we're both judging looks based on something else about the car that its look evokes, something about "what you can do with it". We just got different asthetic standards because we care about being able to do different things with the car.

Whenever a person claims all cars look the same ... well, that's when I begin taking their automotive comments with grains of salt.Not all cars, just those of certain types, based on the things that they have in common which make them members of the type.

How about the Audi A4 Avant (http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/Audi/Spy_Shots/A4/AUDI_A4_Avant_main.jpg)?It's longer than I had in mind, which makes it more like a station wagon when I was thinking of sedans, and the top half (the rear window) is angled in more instead of staying close to vertical like the bottom.

Many people like those very things you seem to dislike about convertiblesThey LIKE the inside being hard to heat in the cold, hard to cool in the heat, and noisy, and the roof being easy to damage by accident and a beacon to vandals? (And I fogot to mention leak-prone.) :jaw-dropp OK, the thing about liking wedgemobiles, I don't share, but at least I understand it (I like Cessna/Lear/Beechcraft/Gulfstream/HondaJet planes, but first got into planes through the F-16 and F-22)... but this liking the drawbacks of convertibles, rather than just thinking of them as something to tolerate, is just bizarre. :boggled:

I even prefer rear wheel drive, the way God intended for cars to be made. ;)What difference does it make? I know it was all there was for a long time, because front-wheel drive is more complex technology because the same wheels must do two unrelated duties (pushing the car forward and steering it to the side), but what's the difference in actual results now? Does front-wheel drive require some kind of compromise in power in order to get that function to be combinable with steering?

[tyr_13]

What difference does it make? I know it was all there was for a long time, because front-wheel drive is more complex technology because the same wheels must do two unrelated duties (pushing the car forward and steering it to the side), but what's the difference in actual results now? Does front-wheel drive require some kind of compromise in power in order to get that function to be combinable with steering?

It doesn't snow where you live does it?

[Hokulele]

The handling on corners feels very different between front wheel and rear wheel drive cars. Also, if drag racing is your thing, there can only be rear wheel drive.

[timhau]

Say hello to the super sporty modded EXTREME Toyota Prius...sorry, I just vomited in my mouth...


Uh... a sportscar that doesn't growl like an irate tiger in traffic lights just isn't right. Mind you, that's probably the direction future sportscars will take, but it still isn't right.

[IMST]

Say hello to the super sporty modded EXTREME Toyota Prius...sorry, I just vomited in my mouth...
http://www.treehugger.com/extreme-toyota-prius-01.jpg

*headdesk*

That's horrible.

I really like the Prius in general, but it already had a looks problem. And the way my ex drove his, I bet it only got about 20 miles to the gallon.

[Just thinking]

...or to get ahead of the cars next to you after a red light goes green if you need to shift lanes within the next block... or to pass a slow vehicle in a relatively short amount of space before you'd need to get back in the right lane. I know this, and I've done such things before, in normal cars. But normal cars already have enough extra capacity (above and beyond the way they're normally driven most of the time) to do that with.

Not everyone may agree with you on the above ... I for one. But what of those folks that enjoy taking their car to the track? You failed to address that point. Having a car for only daily functionality is not everyone's ultimate passion. That may not be an issue for you or others here on this forum, but it still exists, and is very much alive and well. And unless you've tried to merge onto many of New Jersey's roadways that simply have parking lot driveways access them directly, you'll wish for every drop of horsepower you can get --- most likely more.

That's within a normal driving pattern, which doesn't need a car shaped like a bubbly/melting wedge to do. I know the wedgemobiles can do it faster than my Cruiser or the Horizon & Sable that I first learned to drive in, but over the relatively short amount of time that such things happen in, it's a small difference (and wanting every last little bit of it you could get would indicate a dangerously aggressive attitude about driving, or perhaps a lack of understanding of how much acceleration a "regular" car can do). And the sacrifices that are made for it (from purchase price to fuel efficiency to cargo capacity to ease & costs of maintenance to ride comfort to floor & ceiling heights to noise level) are significant.

All I can say is, all cars have a give and take for what they offer. Not all of us place similar values on the many different aspects of cars --- hence the variety of styles and models. "Regular car" acceleration can be achieved in a higher performance automobile as much as it can in a "regular car". But the regular car ends there, and that may not be where everyone wishes to end. Yes, there's a price to be paid for anything extra, be it performance, cargo capacity, off road maneuverability, styling, options, whatever. And just because you may not place a high value on something doesn't mean others won't as well.

Of course, you might say "But what do those things have to do with looks? We're just talking about looks, not all the other stuff you'd think about when choosing a car.". But no look is inherently good or bad; the asthetic standard by which one is judged good or bad is determined by something else. For those who like the wedgemobiles' looks, that determinor of the standard, the thing that makes that look look good to them, must be based on the "sports" performance traits that the vehicle's appearance evokes. So we're both judging looks based on something else about the car that its look evokes, something about "what you can do with it". We just got different asthetic standards because we care about being able to do different things with the car.

One car immediately comes to mind ... the Fiero (http://www.dragtimes.com/images/6914-1985-Pontiac-Fiero.jpg). Its looks far exceeded its potential, which may well be why it went south in only a few years. Styling alone can only take you so far.

They LIKE the inside being hard to heat in the cold, hard to cool in the heat, and noisy, and the roof being easy to damage by accident and a beacon to vandals? (And I fogot to mention leak-prone.)

They had/have a simplicity to them that is hard to explain. The feel of driving one is in some respects exhilarating, even those that may be underpowered. Some folks just don't like giving that up.

What difference does it make? I know it was all there was for a long time, because front-wheel drive is more complex technology because the same wheels must do two unrelated duties (pushing the car forward and steering it to the side), but what's the difference in actual results now? Does front-wheel drive require some kind of compromise in power in order to get that function to be combinable with steering?

Higher horse powered cars are still usually rear wheel drive, or all wheel drive. The feel is simply different.

[ElMondoHummus]

Say hello to the super sporty modded EXTREME Toyota Prius...sorry, I just vomited in my mouth...
http://www.treehugger.com/extreme-toyota-prius-01.jpg

Yow... who thought that this would be a good idea?

Meh... lipstick, pig, you all can finish that sentence out...

[tyr_13]

If you're going to pimp a Prius (I actually have been in love with that car ever sense my visit to the production facility in Aichi) just go with it's strengths.

That is to say, blue and gray Aztec patterns and nacelles. :)

[Delvo]

But what of those folks that enjoy taking their car to the track? You failed to address that point.Because it's irrelevant in a thread about how we each feel about cars' looks and why we feel that way. In a thread about what one kind of car should be the only one available so everybody is compelled to drive that kind or no car at all, then I'd talk about that. ;)

It doesn't snow where you live does it?Yes it does, but implying that it must not does not answer my question, so I'm confuzzled about why you responded to my question at all. If you didn't have an answer or didn't want to give one, you could have simply not posted. Also, the fact that I do live where it snows regularly and don't know what's good about RWD obviously means the logic which you presented was invalid to begin with, which I'm pretty sure you knew it was all along. I don't know what purpose there could have been for a post like that other than to try to start a fight by baiting me with a put-down about being ignorant of something that's supposedly so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated (since you didn't state it).

If I have ever ridden or driven in a RWD car, I didn't know it and still don't know which ones were or weren't, and never thought about it, so any differences I might have felt between one vehicle and another would not have been attributed by me to their being RWD or FWD. As far as snow is concerned, that only brings up one thing I've heard of as an advantage of FWD over RWD (higher traction due to the engine's weight), not the other way around as you seem to think must be so obvious.

The handling on corners feels very different between front wheel and rear wheel drive cars.The feel is simply different.Different how? Or can you at least describe the geometry of why?

Also, if drag racing is your thing, there can only be rear wheel drive.What makes it so?

Higher horse powered cars are still usually rear wheel drive, or all wheel drive.I've gathered that before from others, but why is that? By tradition, or by mechanical necessity?

[Hokulele]

Different how <the handling of front-wheel and rear-wheel drives>? Or can you at least describe the geometry of why?


This is a bit difficult without starting a technical discussion on oversteer and understeer. I'll see if I can find an article on-line that explains it clearly.

What makes it so <the benefit of rear-wheel drive in drag racing>?


When you accelerate very hard, the front end wants to lift up which transfers weight to the back wheels. Having additional weight on the driven wheel improves traction which improves the ability to accelerate. Try taking off in an unloaded pickup truck sometime (provided you don't have 4-wheel drive). The rear tires tend to spin freely while the truck doesn't go anywhere*. This is part of the reason why front-wheel drive vehicles are so much better in the snow, the engine adds weight which improves traction.

You may notice the opposite of this effect if you ever have to brake too hard (eg. animals running out into the road). The nose of the car wants to dive, unless you have a fairly stiff suspension.


* - ETA: Which is why the top drag racers tend to have the engine mounted in the rear as well.

[RoboTimbo]

Different how?

"How to Make Your Car Handle (http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-Your-Car-Handle/dp/0912656468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236122373&sr=8-1)" by Fred Puh explains all.

[tyr_13]

Yes it does, but implying that it must not does not answer my question, so I'm confuzzled about why you responded to my question at all. If you didn't have an answer or didn't want to give one, you could have simply not posted. Also, the fact that I do live where it snows regularly and don't know what's good about RWD obviously means the logic which you presented was invalid to begin with, which I'm pretty sure you knew it was all along. I don't know what purpose there could have been for a post like that other than to try to start a fight by baiting me with a put-down about being ignorant of something that's supposedly so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated (since you didn't state it).


It was an honest question to ascertain how to best explain it to you. If you just want to get pissy fine.

It is much, much easier to spin a rwd car. Front wheel drive lets you pull out of a slide better because the force is applied at the front of the car. If it finds traction the rear tends to get pulled into line. If it were rear wheel the front can easily get a different amount of traction from the force being applied at the rear, giving even less control.

I'm sure the links explain it better though.

[paximperium]

Different how? Or can you at least describe the geometry of why?

What makes it so?

I've gathered that before from others, but why is that? By tradition, or by mechanical necessity?
Hokulele has already answered this to a degree.

Front wheel drive cars have several underlying issues:
1)The most prominent is understeer, where the angle of car won't turn in the direction your wheels are pointed although this will only happen if you start to slide.
2)You also have an issue of torque steer where the steering wheel will be pulled to the right by the torque of engine when accelerating under full throttle. A new suspension system by Ford seems to have solved this problem.
3)It also doesn't accelerate as well for the reasons Hokulele mentioned.

However, these issues only become an issue if you're driving a high powered car that you really drive aggressively. It doesn't matter as much with normal civics or a Ford focus for instance. Its primary advantage is that is cheap and a simpler system.

A rear wheel drive car is still a driver's car. It oversteers(ie. fishtails) which is easier to control than an understeer, it tends to be much better balanced and it accelerates better.

You will also notice differences in engine position with different cars. The vast majority of cars are front engine mounted while some cars are mid-mouted(370Z, Porsche) and a few are rear mounted. This to get to the 50/50 weight distribution and mid center of gravity that everyone wants for the best balance.

[technoextreme]

Gumpert.

[paximperium]

Gumpert.
Huh? The Gumpert is a racing car that is barely street legal and its looks are...unique...bleh.
http://ahdin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/gumpert-apollo6.jpg

[Just thinking]

A rear wheel drive car is still a driver's car. It oversteers(ie. fishtails) which is easier to control than an understeer, it tends to be much better balanced and it accelerates better.

Very true, rear wheel drive cars allow for more balanced weight distribution as opposed to front only driven cars. The engine can be placed behind the front wheels' axis, giving the car a front mid-engine distribution for weight. (Not to mention the differential is now on the rear axis.) The weight distribution on my 300ZX is 51/49% --- allowing all 4 tires to be inflated evenly. This is great for handling stability on turns; you'd be amazed how rapidly on a 270 degree turn that SUV up my rear hatch falls back once the cornering begins.

[Damien Evans]

While that's true, the decent car will be the G3 and they'll still be saddled with the Ute.

What the hell!

What have you got against cars that actually do the job they're built for? (ie. non American cars)

[Damien Evans]

And they (utes) are a damn sight better than the stupid American rip-off, the pick-up truck. The F-Series makes me want to vomit.

[X]

I like Miatas. My dream car is a '94 - '97 model, blue, with the hard top.
And, of course, with the frame well stiffened, the brakes swapped out, the suspension swapped out, and a supercharger. :D


But I don't know if I'd list it as beautiful.

I'll let you in on another secret: I love cars with long noses. Like the old British roadsters, with swooping fenders and humongous hoods. Blame 101 Dalmations. Love 'em. But they aren't the most beautiful thing, in my opinion.

I'm going to have to go with the Dodge Magnum. I think it's gorgeous. It's a wagon (which is awesome). It just looks right. Although, I've heard the rearward visibility is atrocious. Pity.

[madurobob]

And they (utes) are a damn sight better than the stupid American rip-off, the pick-up truck. The F-Series makes me want to vomit.

Yes, I'm SO glad to know the El Camino is making a comeback over here ;)

[AgeGap]

Veyron G-1 m.p.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1813249ae93068c1c8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15505)

Much better without the ugly pig snout:D

[Piscivore]

I like how the Chrysler 300 looks now.

[IMST]

I like how the Chrysler 300 looks now.

I once had a Chrysler dealer describe the 300 to me as "*********** ugly". I wouldn't seek it out, but I agree that it looks okay. At least compared to the rest of the Chrysler line.

[Oliver]

Veyron G-1 m.p.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1813249ae93068c1c8.jpg

Much better without the ugly pig snout:D


Either the G1 or the Carrera GT cabrio:

http://carwallpapers.hu/wallpaper/porsche/carrera/2004/1024/Porsche%20911%20Carrera%20GT%20-%2001.jpg

:drool:

[geonuc]

Ferrari 599. Would that I could afford one.

[Elizabeth I]

No idea how they perform or anything else, but the Chrysler Crossfire (http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/crossfire/index.html?bid=1758115&adid=207939705&pid=30087464&KWNM=chrysler%20crossfire&KWID=3021615&gclid=CL3npoG9pZkCFQKbnAodiS8tqA) and the Dodge Viper (http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/viper/).

[steffanie]

People like the Prius? The car that costs a fortune to build and isn't all that environmentally friendly in the end?

Geonuc great minds think alike:D It's a beautiful car. I also like the F430.

[AJM8125]

What do people think of the Dodge Charger. I thought they were the baddest looking new cars around, until I saw the Challenger.http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/ (http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/charger/gallery/)

The SRT 8 was on my shopping list before the economy tanked. :(

The best looking domestic for 2009, I think. I want one, Oh Blessed Mother of Acceleration....


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249bf310537944.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15707)

[Damien Evans]

No idea how they perform or anything else, but the Chrysler Crossfire (http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/crossfire/index.html?bid=1758115&adid=207939705&pid=30087464&KWNM=chrysler%20crossfire&KWID=3021615&gclid=CL3npoG9pZkCFQKbnAodiS8tqA) and the Dodge Viper (http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/viper/).

Eww...

The crossfire is butt-ugly.

[coalesce]

For me, it's my 2007 Fusion--simply the best car I've ever owned.

Michael

[Elizabeth I]

Eww...

The crossfire is butt-ugly.

Well, it's plain all your taste is in your mouth...

[Delvo]

Another nifty function to add to a car is a convertible roof, but... only a hard top would add the benefit of convertibility without sacrificing some good practical aspects of a solid non-convertible top. And as far as I know, among current production cars, that narrows it down to Mazda Miata or Pontiac G6.This conversation has gotten me looking at cars more closely again, as if I were going to buy one any time soon, although I'm not. My Cruiser has a big sunroof (or moonroof?), which has spoiled me on the open-air thing, so I'm focusing on convertibles. Since I posted that restricting it to hardtops appeared to narrow it down to Miata and G6, I've discovered two more, so now I'm doing a little review of the group.

First, the oddball of the type, the Miata: it's significantly cheaper than the others, but that's the only thing I like about it. It's tiny, with only two seats and a narrow width, short length, and short height, to such an extent that it could create a visibility problem (both seeing and being seen) but despite that, it's still the least fuel-efficient hardtop convertible. And the visual style, partly from the contours and partly just from the fact that it's the tiny two-seater, would just scream that I'm either a pushy aggressive punk looking for a way to get in a collision or an old fart with a self-esteem problem trying to pretend to still be young.

[Delvo]

Next, the G6: as the only alternative to the Miata, it's preferable mainly because of what I'm not fond of about the Miata. But two rows of seats make a long distance for a retractable hard roof to cover, so look at the cheats they built in to help it reach over: the front windshield leans back so far that the top of it is practically right over the driver's forehead, and the rear window leans forward similarly. (The non-convertible coupe and sedan versions of the G6 aren't like this.) This would make the interior feel more cramped than its size would suggest and even put the windshield a bit in the way of getting in and out. And makes it look from the outside like it's trying really hard to look sleek and fast and futurey, which I don't particularly appreciate because it's based on other people's desire to drive badly and call it "fun", and that attitude and the look associated with it are pushed at me too much as the ONLY way to feel about cars. The G6 doesn't have it so bad that it would actually want to avoid being seen in it, but it's just not particularly good either.

[Delvo]

Now, the relatively recent discoveries for me (posts merged to avoid being split by that one that somebody else posted below this one)...

First, the Volkswagen Eos (shown in the first two pictures in silver and white): it doesn't have quite as much lean in the front and rear windows, and the headlight clusters don't look swept/dragged back, so it doesn't have that "Look at me, I'm 'sporty', please like me" look to it. It also has a nifty variation on the hardtop convertible theme. When it's up, the roof still has a sunroof (in fact it mostly IS a sunroof), giving you three options instead of two. Even with everything closed, the roof is darkly tinted but semi-transparent, so it lacks the thermal & sound insulation of a standard hardtop (unless there's a hidden panel that slides under it that I haven't seen, like in my Cruiser), but I'd take that just for the sunroof in the convertible.

Finally, the one I'd be getting if I were getting a new car right now: Chrysler Sebring (shown in the last picture in hues of blue): Like the Pontiac G6, it's just one version of Sebring, the other version being a sedan with a fixed roof. But unlike the G6, this one's windshield isn't significantly dragged back over the front seats, but is slightly more upright and normal than even the one on the Eos. So I'd feel like the windshield was out in front of me instead of hanging over me and invading the interior space. And the more-upright rear window also means there's more space inside over the back seat than in the other convertibles. (When it's closed, you'd never even know it was convertible.) This shaping, plus the overall contours and front-end design and even some of the color choices, not only manage to avoid the cliché look of a car that's trying to be too "exciting" or "bold" or such, but even have a calm, cool, relaxing feel to them. And it's cheaper than Eos or G6, with similar power and efficiency.

[Mouthfire]

For a car that's actually affordable, I kinda' like the Saturn Sky:

http://media.canada.com/b17a5268-e809-4db2-a84b-06fc4c00d03e/saturn_sky_2007_800500.jpg

[Delvo]

(contents moved up to my previous post)

[paximperium]

Delvo what is your price range? I'm assuming a sub-30K?
People could recommend BMW, Porsche etc. but I doubt that it is within most people's price range.

Do you need rear seats or is a 2seater roadster enough?

[paximperium]

Here's one more convertible hard top for you to consider:
Volvo C70
http://digiads.com.au/car-news/images/2006/05/article_5297-img_0.jpg
http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/6954164538551585.JPG?0.024538965802195167

[Mouthfire]

Here's one more convertible hard top for you to consider:
Volvo C70
http://digiads.com.au/car-news/images/2006/05/article_5297-img_0.jpg
http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/6954164538551585.JPG?0.024538965802195167

Ah... those new volvos have really grown on me. Not as boxy as their predecessors, and looking quite classy....

[Delvo]

Delvo what is your price range? I'm assuming a sub-30K?Since I'm not buying, I don't have one, especially since my thought process tends to be to first find out how much money something costs and then decide whether it's worth it, rather than to first decide how much to spend and then find out whether it's enough to get something satisfactory.

But I did default to only thinking of and checking out the companies that I might really buy from and not even having the higher-priced companies cross my mind. I generally do with big purchases is get the cheapest option that has the traits I want and ignore the ones that cost more but only because of other traits I don't care about (like a $30000 name plate), so that tends to make some certain companies disappear from my awareness altogether

But, like I said, since this isn't a shopping thread, they're all fair game. I just forgot about some of them myself.

People could recommend BMW, Porsche etc.I just checked them. I only saw one convertible Porsche, called "Boxter". Even without disqualifying it for the soft top, I'd still have to say it looks like just a bug-eyed Miata. (Of course, to me, almost all Porsches look like they're afflicted with an especially bad case of Grave's Disease, with those doofy bubbly bloated headlight enclosures.)

BMW... gewd gawd, 42 models, including 9 convertibles? I had no idea they made so many! (Of course, to some extent they do that by splitting what another company would call options on one model and calling them by different model names instead.) Only 3 of the 9 are hardtops, though: 328i, 335i, and M3. And they all look pretty good, about on par with Sebring and Eos, at least while they're open. (BMW doesn't have any pictures of the M3 closed; I only pegged it as a hardtop because it says so on the specs page.)

Do you need rear seats or is a 2seater roadster enough?2-seaters don't necessarily need to look bad; they just generally tend to. :D BMW's Z4 models both follow a pretty widely different style from Miata and Boxter, and look much better, but scored low only in my "not being a ragtop" category.

[X]

For a car that's actually affordable, I kinda' like the Saturn Sky:

http://media.canada.com/b17a5268-e809-4db2-a84b-06fc4c00d03e/saturn_sky_2007_800500.jpg



I've got some bad news for you... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation#Future)

Not that I care. I think that the Sky and it's cousin, the Solstice are too short for their width.
I wish Dodge would built the Demon (http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news0700212_dodge_demon_concept/index.html). Much nicer looking.
They've been talking about it for years.




And Delvo: What about a Toyota Solara convertible? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Solara#Second_generation_.282004-2008.29)

And for the record: I'm a Miata fan. I've always loved 'em. Don't own one, but if I found one at a good price and got a good offer on my Lincoln, I wouldn't look back.
I've never received comments about overcompensating. I have been asked if I'm gay. (I'm not.)

[Mouthfire]

I've got some bad news for you... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Corporation#Future)


Yeah, I'm aware of that.... really is too bad. Probably would've gotten one if the company wasn't going under.

[paximperium]

I just checked them. I only saw one convertible Porsche, called "Boxter". Even without disqualifying it for the soft top, I'd still have to say it looks like just a bug-eyed Miata.
There are two kinds of Vert Porsches, the Boxster and the 911s. All the 911s are softtops but the Boxster does have a hardtop version.
The aesthetics of Porsches are very personal since they don't change much in the design. I actually like the current model. They are still apparently the best roadsters out there but expensive.

BMW... gewd gawd, 42 models, including 9 convertibles? I had no idea they made so many! (Of course, to some extent they do that by splitting what another company would call options on one model and calling them by different model names instead.) Only 3 of the 9 are hardtops, though: 328i, 335i, and M3. And they all look pretty good, about on par with Sebring and Eos, at least while they're open. (BMW doesn't have any pictures of the M3 closed; I only pegged it as a hardtop because it says so on the specs page.)
I have a bimmer and it isn't too confusing once you figure out the system. There are 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7series; bigger number means bigger and more expensive car. Everything else is just variations. Add in the Z4 and the X-series which are SUVs.

Anyway, BMW only has 2 hardtops verts. The 3-series vert and the new 2010 Z4 Roadster. I love the the new Z4, but it is about $70000.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tjTqKBNGr8Q/SHuJwyYcCzI/AAAAAAAABxs/XojbGTKJLOk/s1600/bmw%2Bz4%2Bcoupe%2B2010.jpg

If you think BMW has a weird system, Mercedes has a naming system that makes absolutely no sense.
Mercedes-Benz has a hardtop vert and a hardtop roadster.
Merc SLK
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/2009-Mercedes-Benz-SLK-Roadster-06.jpg
Merc CLK http://www.freewebs.com/aspidistrawhiteminkdictionary/Teddys%20Mercedes%20Convertible%203.jpg


2-seaters don't necessarily need to look bad; they just generally tend to. :D BMW's Z4 models both follow a pretty widely different style from Miata and Boxter, and look much better, but scored low only in my "not being a ragtop" category. Look at the new 2010 BMW Z4, it is a hardtop.

As for the Miata, I really like the car. My friend has one from last years model and it is a zippy, well balanced and a great car. I've driven it and it is one of the best cars I've ever driven, well balanced, great steering feel and great accelaration because of how light it is. I don't like how the newer Miata looks but it is a very good car.

[Mouthfire]

There are two kinds of Vert Porsches, the Boxster and the 911s. All the 911s are softtops but the Boxster does have a hardtop version.
The aesthetics of Porsches are very personal since they don't change much in the design. I actually like the current model. They are still apparently the best roadsters out there but expensive.

I have a bimmer and it isn't too confusing once you figure out the system. There are 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7series; bigger number means bigger and more expensive car. Everything else is just variations. Add in the Z4 and the X-series which are SUVs.

Anyway, BMW only has 2 hardtops verts. The 3-series vert and the new 2010 Z4 Roadster. I love the the new Z4, but it is about $70000.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tjTqKBNGr8Q/SHuJwyYcCzI/AAAAAAAABxs/XojbGTKJLOk/s1600/bmw%2Bz4%2Bcoupe%2B2010.jpg

If you think BMW has a weird system, Mercedes has a naming system that makes absolutely no sense.
Mercedes-Benz has a hardtop vert and a hardtop roadster.
Merc SLK
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/2009-Mercedes-Benz-SLK-Roadster-06.jpg
Merc CLK http://www.freewebs.com/aspidistrawhiteminkdictionary/Teddys%20Mercedes%20Convertible%203.jpg

Look at the new 2010 BMW Z4, it is a hardtop.

As for the Miata, I really like the car. My friend has one from last years model and it is a zippy, well balanced and a great car. I've driven it and it is one of the best cars I've ever driven, well balanced, great steering feel and great accelaration because of how light it is. I don't like how the newer Miata looks but it is a very good car.

Eh... maybe it's just me, but the SLK's always looked like an odd looking car to me. Personal preferences, I guess....

[paximperium]

Eh... maybe it's just me, but the SLK's always looked like an odd looking car to me. Personal preferences, I guess....
I really never liked how the SLKs looked...until I saw one in person. It is a very good looking car...and pretty expensive as well.

[Mouthfire]

I really never liked how the SLKs looked...until I saw one in person. It is a very good looking car...and pretty expensive as well.

Yeah, I don't doubt that :-)

[Disbelief]

Yeah, I'm aware of that.... really is too bad. Probably would've gotten one if the company wasn't going under.

The warranty would be with GM and not Saturn. As long as GM does not go under, , which may or may not happen, you would still have full warranty.

[Euromutt]

My choice for a mid-life crisismobile is the Honda S2000 (http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/).

[IMST]

My choice for a mid-life crisismobile is the Honda S2000 (http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/).

Better hurry. This is the last model year.

[timhau]

Cars as mid-life-crisisvehicles are so-o-o out.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_29394888979154c50.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13172)

[Damien Evans]

Better hurry. This is the last model year.

Of course, he could still buy a used one.

[IMST]

Is it allowed to buy a used vehicle for a mid life crisis? It seems to be against the whole point.

[timhau]

Is it allowed to buy a used vehicle for a mid life crisis? It seems to be against the whole point.

If it's a 1960s Mustang, a Jaguar E-type, Aston Martin DB4 - DB6 or other classic sports car, then yes.

[wardenclyffe]

Yes, but I think there's already a thread for most beautiful car ever.

Ward

[Disbelief]

The best looking domestic for 2009, I think. I want one, Oh Blessed Mother of Acceleration....


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2683249bf310537944.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15707)

I see that, and raise with the all new camaro:

http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/#

[James Redford]

Inspired by the most beautiful car ever thread, which I'm still trying to think of an answer to, I thought I'd create another for current production cars: ones that a normal person could go buy today.

My vote, which I expect to be thoroughly critisized for, is the Chevrolet Cobalt.

I love the grace of the simplicity in its design. It says to me that it will get me where I need to go at a reasonable rate of speed. I couldn't ask for any more in a car.

I like the SSC Ultimate Aero TT by Shelby SuperCars Inc. (SSC). Years ago I would have said the McLaren F1 by McLaren Automotive.

[nw843x]

http://www.psp-themes.net/data/media/12/Ford%20Falcon%20FPV%20GT%20Theme.jpg

40th anniversary Falcon GT Cobra.

This.
Why can I not buy something like this in Canada?
Seating for 4, good performance, and looks great. Fix the position of the drivers seat over to the left (proper :D ) side of the vehicle and I'd own one in an instant.

I'm sure that if Ford had built/imported these into North America they'd have sold everyone they made. Much like Chrysler has had decent sales of the 300/Magnum lineup.

[paximperium]

I'm sure that if Ford had built/imported these into North America they'd have sold everyone they made. Much like Chrysler has had decent sales of the 300/Magnum lineup. Ford has a better car lineup in Europe and the rest of the world than the US.

I believe they decided against bringing in the GT Cobra to prevent cannibalization of Mustang sales.

[Giz]

I'd I have to give my vote to the current Ford Mustang (preferably a GT or GT500, but they all essentially look the same).


Agreed. Preferably a GT with the air scoop on the hood... wait - that's my car!

[qayak]

My choice for a mid-life crisismobile is the Honda S2000 (http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/).

Bugatti Veyron. Go big or go home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYpY-1mdON4&feature=PlayList&p=8417DB52628F3B9F&index=0&playnext=1

[Delvo]

407 MPH? Mach 0.53! There are probably airplanes that don't go that fast.

[X]

407 MPH? Mach 0.53! There are probably airplanes that don't go that fast.


No probably about it.

I wouldn't rank the Veyron as the most beautiful, though.

It's just too assertive. It tries to be beautiful, instead of just being beautiful.

As an object of engineering magnificence, as a car that is truly second-to-none, as a brilliant concept brought to life, it works.
But most beautiful? No.

[DC]

http://www.speedheads.de/artikelbilder/2008/eRUFKonzeptModellAPorsche911_2.jpg

http://www.speedheads.de/artikelbilder/2008/eRUFKonzeptModellAPorsche911_3.jpg

:)

[DC]

http://www.motormobiles2.de/autoberichte09/tesla_s_0903_04.jpg
http://zeitgeist.yopi.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tesla-s-4-tuerer-elektroauto-heck-2.jpg

or if polution woudnt mather.

http://www.tuningnews.net/news/080327/premier4509-lamborghini-murcielago.jpg

[paximperium]

407 MPH? Mach 0.53! There are probably airplanes that don't go that fast.
407MPH? Are you talking about the Veyron?
No, the top speed is 250mph. There is another supercar with about 1200hp that can go up to 280mph.

[DC]

407MPH? Are you talking about the Veyron?
No, the top speed is 250mph. There is another supercar with about 1200hp that can go up to 280mph.

O.o

untill resently the speed record for serial produced cars was 407 Km/h (not mph) (Veyron)

resently Saleen S7 Twin Turbo was a little bit faster with 411 Km/h (255.83 mph)

where is that 280 mph coming from?

ETA: here? ^^ http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/23/the-280-mph-streamlined-acabion-gtbo/

[paximperium]

O.o

untill resently the speed record for serial produced cars was 407 Km/h (not mph) (Veyron)

resently Saleen S7 Twin Turbo was a little bit faster with 411 Km/h (255.83 mph)

where is that 280 mph coming from?

ETA: here? ^^ http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/23/the-280-mph-streamlined-acabion-gtbo/
SSC Ultimate Aero TT. Top speed is 257mph(Unofficial record).
The 2009 model has a theoretical speed limit to 280mph.

[DC]

SSC Ultimate Aero TT. Top speed is 257mph(Unofficial record).
The 2009 model has a theoretical speed limit to 280mph.

ah cool thanks.

While i knew the car i didnt know it was so fast.

but i cant wait for the Ultimate Aero EV :D

[paximperium]

but i cant wait for the Ultimate Aero EV :D
Is it to replace your slow Veyron?:eye-poppi

[DC]

Is it to replace your slow Veyron?:eye-poppi

:D

i guess it will have troubles replacing the sound of a double V8 engine :D

[paximperium]

:D

i guess it will have troubles replacing the sound of a double V8 engine :D
I'm actually interested in the Fisker Karma and the Tesla Model S...although the sound of a good straight-6 or V8 will be difficult to replace.

[DC]

I'm actually interested in the Fisker Karma and the Tesla Model S...although the sound of a good straight-6 or V8 will be difficult to replace.

the Karma isnt convincing to me yet, i read it has only 80 Km reach with electric engine.

The Tesla S is indeed very very interesting. i am really thinking about geting my self a car :) and Tesla S is ranking top for me

[Mr Clingford]

Hmm, the SSC Ultimate Aero TT looks more like a motorbike with a canopy than a car. Impressive speed, nonetheless.

[DC]

Hmm, the SSC Ultimate Aero TT looks more like a motorbike with a canopy than a car. Impressive speed, nonetheless.

http://images.hugi.is/bilar/129113.jpg

motorbike?

[Mr Clingford]

The above is an awesome car.
But this is the pic from the link
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/03/acabion.jpg

[DC]

The above is an awesome car.
But this is the pic from the link
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/03/acabion.jpg

that is an Acabion GTBO

that what happens when a swiss company doesnt know if they want to make a car or a motorcycle :D

i want to see a crashtest of those thingys :D

[Mr Clingford]

I wasn't quite reading the above posts carefully enough.

I wonder if Top Gear could oblige with footage of a crash test. Don't fancy being the driver/ rider/ Crash Test Dummy/ Sacrifice!

[paximperium]

I wasn't quite reading the above posts carefully enough.

I wonder if Top Gear could oblige with footage of a crash test. Don't fancy being the driver/ rider/ Crash Test Dummy/ Sacrifice!
Use the Stig. He is immortal.

[bigred]

Let's make the price of Hokulele's house the cap.

But, more seriously, I'd aim for a car that you could reasonably expect to find at a dealership in any major city in a country the car is distributed.

Haven't gone thru all of this thread but given that, the Corvette has been mentioned right?

Cobalt? :boggled: For an econo-car it's not bad but let's get a grip here.

[Nogbad]

Well, not too many mentions of TVR in these car threads, so ...

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/10/tvr_tusc.jpg

...

The Tuscan is quite simply beautiful. It makes my trousers all bumpy

As Spike Milligan once said "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...







get it out with Optrex"

[Delvo]

407MPH? Are you talking about the Veyron?
No, the top speed is 250mph.Ya, I missed the "k" in "km/h". I thought that didn't make sense.

[sebbiel]

http://imgs.idnes.cz/ak_aktual/A031229_SAM_1024CHRYSLER300C01_N.JPG

[Delvo]

That blue thing in the large image a few posts before this is just plain silly. The grass there is mowed, and it's still tall enough to stick up in front of its "bumper". That thing couldn't function on pavement that had some pebbles on it!

[paximperium]

That blue thing in the large image a few posts before this is just plain silly. The grass there is mowed, and it's still tall enough to stick up in front of its "bumper". That thing couldn't function on pavement that had some pebbles on it!
That has always been the problem with these "supercars". They are not designed to be livable, just extremely fast. Many of the more extreme cars have no power windows, no stereo or even air-conditioning.

Some of the more "livable" supercars live the Lamborghini Mucierlago or some Ferrarries have adaptive suspensions which can raise or lower the suspensions system to super sport mode or barely-back breaking mode.

[timhau]

That blue thing in the large image a few posts before this is just plain silly. The grass there is mowed, and it's still tall enough to stick up in front of its "bumper". That thing couldn't function on pavement that had some pebbles on it!

That was my first thought as well. I couldn't park that on our designated parking lot at home -- to get there, you have to clear the curb.

[Mr Clingford]

Sure are some unbelievers on this thread.

[P.J. Denyer]

As a sensibly priced option my wife's MG TF is a nice looking little two seat convertable (and as to the complaint that you can't keep ragtops warm, we managed to survive a night in it when the main road we were on was closed due to snow with us on it).

If classics are included I'd probably go for a 70s/80's corvette, maybe the anniversary or pacecar editions (or a '59 if money wasn't an issue), or a '76 6.6ltr Firebird in black and gold (yes I know it's tacky but I grew up on Smokey and the Bandit OK?). Or an S2000 if we're staying current....

My tastes are generally fewer wheels and more accelleration to be honest, I think my VFR750 takes a lot of beating in the motorcycle looks stakes and my custom '77 XS650 has a certain rough edged and basic charm, but that's a different subject for a different thread I guess.

[Damien Evans]

This.
Why can I not buy something like this in Canada?
Seating for 4, good performance, and looks great. Fix the position of the drivers seat over to the left (proper :D ) side of the vehicle and I'd own one in an instant.

I'm sure that if Ford had built/imported these into North America they'd have sold everyone they made. Much like Chrysler has had decent sales of the 300/Magnum lineup.

Are you old enough to remember the original Ford Falcon, back in the mid 60's?

When the US stopped making them, Australia kept going. That's the top of the line GT version there. They cost roughly $80,000 (around 55,000 USD).

The base model starts at around $33,000 AUD. Even at that level it still puts out 268 HP, from a modified version of Ford Americas 4 litre straight 6.

The GT Cobra puts out 415 HP. It's an absolute beast, and yet you can also carry your family around in it.



If you were really crazy you could get one imported and converted to LHD privately, but it'd cost a mint and void your warranty.

[Damien Evans]

http://images.hugi.is/bilar/129113.jpg

motorbike?

Looks like it belongs on Circuit De La Sarthe.

[DC]

Looks like it belongs on Circuit De La Sarthe.

haha dunno if that car would win against all the doped cyclists :D

[Damien Evans]

haha dunno if that car would win against all the doped cyclists :D

Since when did doped cyclists enter the LeMans 24 hours? That would be awesome!!! 2 minutes off your racetime if you hit one!

[DC]

Since when did doped cyclists enter the LeMans 24 hours? That would be awesome!!! 2 minutes off your racetime if you hit one!

lol

but now it makes sence, didnt know le Mans under that name'^^

just knew that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_de_la_Sarthe_(cycling)

[Tandem Thinking]

My Dream Car:

http://www.speedace.info/automotive_directory/car_images/lotus_elise_ice_blue.jpg

[Damien Evans]

My Dream Car:

http://www.speedace.info/automotive_directory/car_images/lotus_elise_ice_blue.jpg

Mine too.

[AgeGap]

Volkswagen Scirocco
LFfnRG9VeHc