Which car best epitomises style over substance?

[300bhp/ton]

S10GTA said:

Yeah, it's not like I owned one for a couple of years. We christened it the FTSlow. Still looked good tho.

Well yours was either broken, or a different engine spec.

[300bhp/ton]

lostkiwi said:

Agree - see comments for X6 above.

Yet both will take you places such as this:




And both, the X6 more makes it more pleasant to travel in places like this:


or this


for the simple reason you can see out over the hedges and walls.

[Arisutea]

zebra said:

El Guapo said:

I wish to nominate the X6.

I think in this case, regardless of the fact that I do not like it, it does what it says on the tin.

As poster above, the M version is rather good.

Please can you tell me what this tin says it does? I honestly have no idea what it is supposed to be.

[jamiebae]

300bhp/ton said:

I think you need to ask what actually constitutes "substance".

Best answer I can thing of is the Citroen Pluriel. A brilliant concept and in theory a hugely diverse and practical car, so it should have substance covered. However to make it so practical it's actually impractical. No where to store the roof bars, pick up bed too small of any real use, still a car interior so you'd not want to put much in it anyhow.

All in all it's probably just a huge compromise at everything it does. And I'm willing to bet, the majority of them are just used as a hatchback 99.99-100% of the time. Completely missing the entire point of them in the first place.

My mum had one of these. She loved it because what she wants from a car is something easy to drive which looks quirky and ideally the roof comes off. Her car history was a turquoise Multipla, orange Pluriel, purple C4 Grand Picasso (briefly), pale blue Beetle Cabrio and now a Mini Clubman.

However, the Citroen is probably objectively the worst car I've ever driven. Compared to a normal C3 it feels heavy and slow, it rolls about like a yacht and even with the roof arches in place it wobbles like a jelly when you hit a cats eye. If you take the arches off it's even worse, and you get wet when it rains, then you get home and find they are scratched because the stand they hang on fell over in the wind. This was the 1.4 manual version, I hear the 1.6 semi-auto was even worse (and can believe it having driven a C2 with the same drivetrain) but I never got to try the full monty of misery that is the Pluriel with Sensodrive.

[GranCab]

Has 300 posts per day just been let out again ?

[jamiebae]

Arisutea said:

zebra said:

El Guapo said:

I wish to nominate the X6.

I think in this case, regardless of the fact that I do not like it, it does what it says on the tin.

As poster above, the M version is rather good.

Please can you tell me what this tin says it does? I honestly have no idea what it is supposed to be.

I'd never buy one, but it doesn't fit this thread at all. There is plenty of 'substance' - they're good to drive, have fantastic engines, great interiors (the front at least) and will get you up the side of an alp without flinching for a day of skiing.

My main issue though, is that they have no 'style' so miss the brief entirely

[300bhp/ton]

jamiebae said:

The Evoque is still a good car though, decent off road, nice to drive and reasonably practical (but I would say that I guess).

Surely the answer to this question is any number of the raft of FWD shopping-car based coupes from the 1990s? At least convertibles give you 20 miles of headroom and sunburn even if they are based on a 1.4 litre Peugeot 206.

So, I'd go with any of the following:

Vauxhall Tigra 1.4 - Corsa interior, Corsa driving dynamics, Corsa engine but less practical in order to make it look sporty
Nissan 100NX - Dull inside, dull to drive but meant to look like a racy coupe
Calibra - OK, the faster ones were OK but the basic versions were all mouth and no trousers
Toyota Passeo - zzzzzzzz

Such coupes don't have less 'substance' than the cars on which they are based. They simply look better.

I had a 100NX and my brother had a Pulsar (JDM import of a Sunny). The 100NX you sit much lower in, instantly felt nicer to be. Engine was quite peppy and revvy. It wasn't as good as a Puma to drive, but it wasn't a million miles away either. Interior was dire I agree. But it also had very nice removable T-Top glass roof panels and a boot way bigger and more useful than that on the Pulsar.

[300bhp/ton]

Arisutea said:

zebra said:

El Guapo said:

I wish to nominate the X6.

I think in this case, regardless of the fact that I do not like it, it does what it says on the tin.

As poster above, the M version is rather good.

Please can you tell me what this tin says it does? I honestly have no idea what it is supposed to be.

It really isn't that hard a question.

[Valgar]

Firstly whoever said MX-3 needs to be shot, one of the finer FWD cars from the 90's, still miss mine.

And whoever said Hyundai Coupe won this thread, I think they still look great today but if ever a car was crying out for more power it was this one.

Definitely a car with Style ahead of substance

[court]

Puddenchucker said:

I'd still like to own one though....

Shirley you mean this?

[300bhp/ton]

jamiebae said:

My mum had one of these. She loved it because what she wants from a car is something easy to drive which looks quirky and ideally the roof comes off. Her car history was a turquoise Multipla, orange Pluriel, purple C4 Grand Picasso (briefly), pale blue Beetle Cabrio and now a Mini Clubman.

However, the Citroen is probably objectively the worst car I've ever driven. Compared to a normal C3 it feels heavy and slow, it rolls about like a yacht and even with the roof arches in place it wobbles like a jelly when you hit a cats eye. If you take the arches off it's even worse, and you get wet when it rains, then you get home and find they are scratched because the stand they hang on fell over in the wind. This was the 1.4 manual version, I hear the 1.6 semi-auto was even worse (and can believe it having driven a C2 with the same drivetrain) but I never got to try the full monty of misery that is the Pluriel with Sensodrive.

Did she ever use the pick up capability?

[jamiebae]

300bhp/ton said:

jamiebae said:

The Evoque is still a good car though, decent off road, nice to drive and reasonably practical (but I would say that I guess).

Surely the answer to this question is any number of the raft of FWD shopping-car based coupes from the 1990s? At least convertibles give you 20 miles of headroom and sunburn even if they are based on a 1.4 litre Peugeot 206.

So, I'd go with any of the following:

Vauxhall Tigra 1.4 - Corsa interior, Corsa driving dynamics, Corsa engine but less practical in order to make it look sporty
Nissan 100NX - Dull inside, dull to drive but meant to look like a racy coupe
Calibra - OK, the faster ones were OK but the basic versions were all mouth and no trousers
Toyota Passeo - zzzzzzzz

Such coupes don't have less 'substance' than the cars on which they are based. They simply look better.

I had a 100NX and my brother had a Pulsar (JDM import of a Sunny). The 100NX you sit much lower in, instantly felt nicer to be. Engine was quite peppy and revvy. It wasn't as good as a Puma to drive, but it wasn't a million miles away either. Interior was dire I agree. But it also had very nice removable T-Top glass roof panels and a boot way bigger and more useful than that on the Pulsar.

So based on that you're arguing that a Nissan Sunny, Vauxhall Corsa, Vauxhall Cavalier and Toyota Corolla (or was it the Starlet) have substance beyond being a practical domestic appliance? Lose the practicality for more 'style' and what is left?

The 100NX was terrible to drive! Maybe your glasses are rose tinted? Not only worse than a Puma, but worse than almost anything else of its era, but I guess that's subjective and maybe some people like rubbery gearshifts, vague uncommunicative steering and general misery

[lostkiwi]

300bhp/ton said:

lostkiwi said:

Agree - see comments for X6 above.

Yet both will take you places such as this:




And both, the X6 more makes it more pleasant to travel in places like this:


or this


for the simple reason you can see out over the hedges and walls.

This would do both those things too and also have far more practicality and style doing it...:

[Puddenchucker]

Matt Harper said:

Puddenchucker said:

I'd still like to own one though....

How is this lacking 'substance'?

It's a folding-metal-roof pick-up truck, so it's not as practical as a 'proper' pick-up. So it's definitely (IMHO) putting style over substance.

[S10GTA]

300bhp/ton said:

S10GTA said:

Yeah, it's not like I owned one for a couple of years. We christened it the FTSlow. Still looked good tho.

Well yours was either broken, or a different engine spec.

TBF it was a GS, but I didn't think much of the others I drove either. I have a vague recollection of Max Power saying something similar about it struggling to keep up with Mondeos.

Anyway, do you ever let anyone else get a word in edgeways or are you always right?

[Slow]

lostkiwi said:

300bhp/ton said:

lostkiwi said:

Agree - see comments for X6 above.

Yet both will take you places such as this:




And both, the X6 more makes it more pleasant to travel in places like this:


or this


for the simple reason you can see out over the hedges and walls.

This would do both those things too and also have far more practicality and style doing it...:

But be 200x less comfortable and not have all the luxurys.
Coming from a owner of a shagged l322 and a defender. Can only imagine the Bmw is more comfortable.

[Mr MXT]

S10GTA said:

300bhp/ton said:

S10GTA said:

Yeah, it's not like I owned one for a couple of years. We christened it the FTSlow. Still looked good tho.

Well yours was either broken, or a different engine spec.

TBF it was a GS, but I didn't think much of the others I drove either. I have a vague recollection of Max Power saying something similar about it struggling to keep up with Mondeos.

Anyway, do you ever let anyone else get a word in edgeways or are you always right?

I had a GPX Mivec, manual.

It was slow.

[Dion20vt]

I nominate the Peugeot RCZ (not the R) mostly the 156bhp version....

Peugeot cracked the styling for a modern coupe, but is rubbish at everything else.

Edited by Dion20vt on Friday 21st August 15:59

[300bhp/ton]

jamiebae said:

So based on that you're arguing that a Nissan Sunny, Vauxhall Corsa, Vauxhall Cavalier and Toyota Corolla (or was it the Starlet) have substance beyond being a practical domestic appliance? Lose the practicality for more 'style' and what is left?

The 100NX was terrible to drive! Maybe your glasses are rose tinted? Not only worse than a Puma, but worse than almost anything else of its era, but I guess that's subjective and maybe some people like rubbery gearshifts, vague uncommunicative steering and general misery

The 100NX had 10x better steering than a Fiat 500, and people seem to like them.

Gearshift, was no better or worse than my 200SX. No worse than my Impreza Turbo either.

And due to the larger boot, I found it more practical than the hatch it was based on. It still had rear seats, just slightly less rear head room.

[lostkiwi]

Slow said:

But be 200x less comfortable and not have all the luxurys.
Coming from a owner of a shagged l322 and a defender. Can only imagine the Bmw is more comfortable.

Ok so I went a bit OTT in the example but I do think the X6 misses the mark on virtually every level.
Its nowhere near a practical as a normal SUV, Is not as capable as a normal SUV off the road and is not the GT touring car the profile is trying to suggest. Why bother with one of these when an X5 is at least practical (if no better off road) and costs less, or a Discovery which is both better off road and more practical or even a Freelander? For that matter a Land Cruiser/Lexus/Touareg/Cayenne is also a better fit.
Why they thought it a good idea to graft a 5 door 'fastback' body onto SUV underpinnings is a bit beyond me.

As for the Ewok why bother when a Freeander 2 does it all so much better for less money?
Definitely style over substance.