RE: PH Blog: supercars - what's the point exactly?

[pork911]

For a private individual any car worth over £1k or so is an exercise in vanity. Super cars are no more ridiculous than any car under 10 years or so old.

That's no criticism of vanity or ridiculousness, but let's not pretend its limited to orange Lamborghini owners.

[D200]

The big Lambo is pointless indeed, but it isn't half as points as the new Pagani we-hi-haa or whatever its called.

The Lambo look cool, sounds amazing, revs like a supercar should [unlike the Pagani which makes peak power at a dieselesque 5000rpm] and not completely tacky inside and out and overly blingy like the Pagini.

The Pagani really is completely & utterly pointless and make the Lambo look like a complete & utter bargain - Lambo is around £300k, the Pagini is near £1M.

I know price is irrevalent for most of the buyers as the people who buy them probably want to them to be more expensive than they are, but still

[Richard A]

Alex Gurr said:

The more time I spend driving in the UK, the more I realise I hate it. I want a car that I can enjoy without having to go fast and perversley that is what some Supercars seem to do really well. On the other hand, I also want a car that makes me feel like I am doing 150mph when I am only doing 50mph and that is why I lust over a Morgan 3-wheeler

Phew, a decent independently minded old British comment among all the new British blokeish consensuality on this thread.

[binnerboy]

I met a guy who owned a diablo, I asked him what his favourite thing about it was, his answer was

"the fact I have to replace the number plate every 6 months because it melts"

the subjective stuff is hard to measure though and is emotional so blokes avoid discussing it and replace with the geekier side as in 0-60, ring time etc

I bought a celica VVT instead of an audi TT solely because the I loved the engine noise, on paper the wrong decision but I smiled every time the revs went over 4000

[British Beef]

D200 said:

The big Lambo is pointless indeed, but it isn't half as points as the new Pagani we-hi-haa or whatever its called.

The Lambo look cool, sounds amazing, revs like a supercar should [unlike the Pagani which makes peak power at a dieselesque 5000rpm] and not completely tacky inside and out and overly blingy like the Pagini.

The Pagani really is completely & utterly pointless and make the Lambo look like a complete & utter bargain - Lambo is around £300k, the Pagini is near £1M.

I know price is irrevalent for most of the buyers as the people who buy them probably want to them to be more expensive than they are, but still

I do agree, this Lamborgini makes certain supercars look flat and overpriced: Huayra, AM77, Veyron, a few Ferraris (Enzo, FXX) and all Koeinseggs. In this company the Aventador looks like a Flambuoyant Bargain!!

Although probably too cheap for the likes of some Sultans which no doubt will need to get theirs personalised with Diamonds and plated in 24Ct gold!

[D200]

pork911 said:

For a private individual any car worth over £1k or so is an exercise in vanity. Super cars are no more ridiculous than any car under 10 years or so old.

That's no criticism of vanity or ridiculousness, but let's not pretend its limited to orange Lamborghini owners.

I can’t really make much sense of what you are trying to say here?

“Super cars are no more ridiculous than any car under 10 years or so old”

So you are saying anyone owning any car under 10 years old is ridiculous and it’s a pure exercise in vanity in doing so?

I think most people who own a car under 10 year old do not do some for reason of vanity. More reasons of comfort, reliability, less maintenance, cheaper running costs, better performance and so on

[frosted]

Finally a decent article in PH. I can tell this man lives inside the m25

[thewheelman]

It's batst insane, that's its point.

[Ryan9078]

namnol said:

Pointless article in my opinion.

Name a BIG lambo that drives well?

Muira - no
Countach - no
Murcielago - no
Aventador - no

But does this make any of them bad cars? No.

They are purely about, power and noise and being big, that's what makes them a lambo.

Most are going to be parked up in some exotic location or rolling on and off a flatbed for the rest of their lives. Practicality has never been a concern.

[The Nur]

Can we get an agreement that PH shall never put out a headline that could be manipulated to seem like it derides the content of the website please?

What is the name of the next PH blog? "TVR - rusty ste"?

[dom180]

namnol said:

Pointless article in my opinion.

Name a BIG lambo that drives well?

Muira - no
Countach - no
Murcielago - no
Aventador - no

But does this make any of them bad cars? No.

They are purely about, power and noise and being big, that's what makes them a lambo.

Is that true - LJK Setright was quite impressed with the Muira in the context of a 1960s selection of sports/supercars. The Countach also got some good reviews both at the time of release and subsequent upgrades and also including by the owner of Evo driving and owning one today.

I'd agree that the Murcielago and Aventador are less relevant today than the next RS4 or 991 or even MP4/12C upgrade .3 which are more usable.

[bosscerbera]

namnol said:

Stew2000 said:

Denorth said:

namnol said:

Pointless article in my opinion.

Name a BIG lambo that drives well?

Muira - no
Countach - no
Murcielago - no
Aventador - no

But does this make any of them bad cars? No.

They are purely about, power and noise and being big, that's what makes them a lambo.

does it mean Diablo drives well or you just missed it?

The Aventador drives well if you have a place to drive it well.

Yes lets just forget all about the Diablo

They will all make you smile but none of them are claiming to be "great to drive"

I bought a Diablo 6.0 BECAUSE it drives well.

[monthefish]

The Nur said:

Can we get an agreement that PH shall never put out a headline that could be manipulated to seem like it derides the content of the website please?

Agreed. No need for 'sensationalism' on PH.

[longblackcoat]

AREA said:

There are two basic measures when evaluating a car:

First, there's the practicality, functionality, it's environmental credentials, depreciation and cost per mile.
Let's summarise all those things into a single generic, quantifiable metric we'll call...
...MILES PER GALLON

Then there's the more subjective aspects. The sound, the image, the smell, the emotions, the pure entertainment value, how it makes you feel, how it makes others feel and perhaps even how (un)obtainable such a car is.
And those can be aggregated into another generic measure. Let's call that...
...SMILES PER GALLON.


A few cars can deliver a healthy number on both counts. Most can't, erring on the side of the Miles per Gallon.

Fortunately the world is made a better place by those cars with high Smiles per Gallon values.

Sadly, I hated driving a Diablo. Steering, brakes, gearbox....all rubbish. It was also appallingly uncomfortable, intrusively loud, and had almost zero visibility. The build quality was Fisher-Price Level 1, and after 90 miles I had to stop because I'd used 2/3 of a tank of fuel.

I'd not care about any of this if the car was fun to drive, but it wasn't. More drama than a season at the Old Vic, granted, but to actually, y'know, drive, it was reasonably unpleasant. The width and lack of visibility made it hard to place the car, but more than that, it was a bit like trying to ride a tiger; you're impressed that you survived, but that's about as far as it goes. It was insanely fast, obviously, but as a superbike rider the acceleration wasn't new to me, and the rest of the car was so unusable as to make the power utterly pointless.

I handed it back to the owner (thanks Simon) wondering (a) why he'd paid £100k (b) whether even if it was free I'd want to drive it again.

Not that many smiles to the gallon for me, and that's just borrowing it for the day. To actually own one, with all the horrific cost that entails, doesn't bear thinking about.

Edited by longblackcoat on Tuesday 12th June 14:23

[Dr Interceptor]

If I ran an automotive website and one of my journos wrote an article asking what the point of supercars was, I'd take that article as his resignation

Even if I was a severely disfigured, with no legs, arms, and limited use of other faculties - I'd still have a supercar. I might not be able to drive it, but just to have someone start it up for me occasionally so I can hear its fire breathing engine burst into life, hear it suck in air, see what it blows out the tailpipes and smell the fumes.... BLISS.

Hence why it's nice to have old cars in the garage... you don't have to take them out - just to go and tickle them up, and run them is a pleasure in itself.

[The Nur]

Dr Interceptor said:

If I ran an automotive website and one of my journos wrote an article asking what the point of supercars was, I'd take that article as his resignation

Spot on.

[BarbaricAvatar]

Hate the Aventador. Nastiest factory Lamborghini ever.
I'm sure it's an event to drive, but i wouldn't want to be seen in one.

I don't think supercars are pointless, but some of the newer ones are pretty vulgar.

[Denorth]

bosscerbera said:

I bought a Diablo 6.0 BECAUSE it drives well.

just looked in your profile -

by the way - it is good to have an answer from one who actually drove it. I wish I did..

[well'Rd]

As has been said, to assume Lambos have a point is to somewhat miss the point. They exist to be outrageous and unattainable to all but the extraordinarily wealthy. Top of my list come the overdue euromillions win. Would be a giggle every time you clambered in.

[Si_man306]

blasos said:

SUPERCARS - WHAT'S THE POINT EXACTLY?

This really is a silly question. The point is to make a profit. All cars are made with the idea of making a profit as the foremost concern. Safety, performance, comfort and so on are of secondary importance - Veyron excluded.

Are you an accountant?