Which car best epitomises style over substance?
Discussion
MrBarry123 said:
Artey said:
Artey said:
DISLAIMER: THIS POST IS NOT SPONSORED BY AUDI
t. If someone told me "that thing was over 50 k" I would have to laugh.To argue it has no substance is unjustified in my opinion. It's a family hatchback that will do everything 99% of drivers want it to do, day after week after month, with non-wallet ruining running costs and would rinse the vast majority of cars on the road. I'd say it has plenty of substance.
My understanding of a car that epitomises style over substance is a car where styling cues have sacrificed the core function of the car. Therefore for me, a classic example is an Overfinch (or Kahn or Revere etc.) Range Rover. The reasons being that: the wheels and tyres aren't suitable for off-roading, the styling means they wouldn't be welcomed at a country shoot and they're lowered so aren't as capable from a ground clearance perspective as they should be. That's not to say they're bad cars - I think the Urban Truck RRs are great - however arguably styling has compromised the core substance of the car itself.
Overfinch used to fit even bigger engines into the older Range Rovers and were actually a good improvment. Admit recently they have become a styling company, but then again the newer Range Rovers aren't real offroaders anyway.
sealtt said:
To me, a TT convertible is what a certain type of woman graduates to after her 206cc. Kind of the credit / finance boom version of a 206cc!
Definitely right up there, certainly a good call.
Though it has to be the convertible version of the TT, and the diesel version really is the cherry on the top!
My point exactly sealtt.Definitely right up there, certainly a good call.
Though it has to be the convertible version of the TT, and the diesel version really is the cherry on the top!
I have nothing against a PHer driving eg a TT RS, because more than likely they just happen to want a new(ish), fast Audi coupe (and are probably a bit of a poser, which in itself doesn't make them a write-off). They've laid out the extra dollar for the very best/ fastest iteration of that particular model, and therefore I must assume they take their driving seriously to some extent.
When I see a new-ish TT that clearly isn't hot (lacking badges, bodywork, big brakes etc), Im instantly suspicious of them. If the car is >2 years old, convertible, and (crucially!) white it's most likely a diesel, and the owner won't have a clue what size the engine is, what the driven wheels are etc. I imagine the driver (predominantly female, middle management/ aged, Pilates 3 times a week) is perpetually on the hands-free to 'Todd' finalising the date/ time of the big clients' soirée at an M25-convenient Ramada. Phrases like 'going forward' and 'adding value' are bandied about like they actually mean something.
I experience significantly fewer of these feelings/ suspicions if the car is a black tintop which is easily identifiable as an eg 3.2 Quattro. I do still like to get a good gander at the driver before making my final judgement though...
A colleague of mine recently bought a TT RS and I can confirm it's a seriously impressive bit of kit. She sold her R8, which wasn't being used enough, for the TT because the TT was more practical. She's not into racing around on the roads and prefers the TT. I'm more of an R8 man, but her position to have been able to choose either is an enviable one! Seeing it in action changed my opinion on the matter somewhat, I'd always liked the first generation TT but never thought much of mkII until then.
Jaguar XJ220
Looks a million dollars, I drove one for about twenty miles and that was enough.
The clutch was like an electric switch, the brakes had such hard compound pads that they were dangerous, the noise of the engine was both noisy and tinny and not inspiring, seemingly due to lack of proper engine mounts.
You could not see anything behind or rear three quarter and the long bonnet and vast width of the car made narrow lanes and parking impossible. You had to be a slim person to enter via the passenger door and to cap it all you were looking at a bunch of dials and switches taken from some standard Ford.
Great to have sitting in the drive to impress the neighbours but undriveable on normal roads
I have read similar tales about Miuras.
Looks a million dollars, I drove one for about twenty miles and that was enough.
The clutch was like an electric switch, the brakes had such hard compound pads that they were dangerous, the noise of the engine was both noisy and tinny and not inspiring, seemingly due to lack of proper engine mounts.
You could not see anything behind or rear three quarter and the long bonnet and vast width of the car made narrow lanes and parking impossible. You had to be a slim person to enter via the passenger door and to cap it all you were looking at a bunch of dials and switches taken from some standard Ford.
Great to have sitting in the drive to impress the neighbours but undriveable on normal roads
I have read similar tales about Miuras.
sealtt said:
skyrover said:
Oh don't get my wrong, the originals were not paragons of reliability
But they were a lot simpler and cheaper to put right when they did break.
It is no good as a off road vehicle as they are too complex to maintain in the field and too expensive to mend when you bend it.
The Range Rover is one of the best all round cars on the market, also happens to be a great off-roader. I personally class it as the best luxury family car money can buy.But they were a lot simpler and cheaper to put right when they did break.
It is no good as a off road vehicle as they are too complex to maintain in the field and too expensive to mend when you bend it.
It's a handsome enough thing, but you must really love the looks to think that the style of the car puts its substance to shame. Maybe things are different for you in "the field", but here in the UK, it's a bloody great car.
Of course you could counter that by saying it is a completely different car to the original and you would be right, as well as the British public aspiring to them despite the well known build quality issues.
Personally, I believe it is a very obvious case of style (looks and toys), over serious performance and quality. If that suits it's target market than fine, but it leaves me cold.
Artey said:
Saloon handles better than estate, because design of rear suspension is different. You're welcome.
The E36, E46 and E90 were all said to handle best in touring guise by everyone who ever drove them all, better weight distribution was guessed, and many said the saloon felt better than the coupe too as it was stiffer. Edited by gizlaroc on Sunday 23 August 09:55
skyrover said:
It's a great car... but it's not built well enough and is unsuitable as a workhorse is my argument.
Of course you could counter that by saying it is a completely different car to the original and you would be right, as well as the British public aspiring to them despite the well known build quality issues.
Personally, I believe it is a very obvious case of style (looks and toys), over serious performance and quality. If that suits it's target market than fine, but it leaves me cold.
So what you're really saying is it doesn't fit what you think it should be? Of course you could counter that by saying it is a completely different car to the original and you would be right, as well as the British public aspiring to them despite the well known build quality issues.
Personally, I believe it is a very obvious case of style (looks and toys), over serious performance and quality. If that suits it's target market than fine, but it leaves me cold.
The range Rover has always been a luxurious version on the Land Rover range, if you wanted truly utilitarian you bought a Defender, if you wanted to use it on the road as an everyday car you bought the Discovery and if you had the money and wanted the next level up comfort wise you bought the Range Rover. Dent the Range Rover out 'in the field' and it has always been serious money to repair compared with a Defender, and they have always been expensive to buy, of course they are harder to work on as are all modern cars, and of course they are more luxurious, things have moved on, but the essence of what a Range Rover is hasn't changed at all.
As I said at the start, what you're really saying is it doesn't fit what you think it should be, but you're wrong.
swerni said:
jamiebae said:
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.
My main issue though, is that they have no 'style' so miss the brief entirely
Partially because I like them and partially because it would annoy the shed driving retards on here
Johnny 89 said:
S10GTA said:
You're all wrong. The clear winner is the mitsubishi fto. Looks like a sports car but struggled to keep up with a mondeo.
In Mivec form they pushed out almost 200bhp, no? gizlaroc said:
skyrover said:
It's a great car... but it's not built well enough and is unsuitable as a workhorse is my argument.
Of course you could counter that by saying it is a completely different car to the original and you would be right, as well as the British public aspiring to them despite the well known build quality issues.
Personally, I believe it is a very obvious case of style (looks and toys), over serious performance and quality. If that suits it's target market than fine, but it leaves me cold.
So what you're really saying is it doesn't fit what you think it should be? Of course you could counter that by saying it is a completely different car to the original and you would be right, as well as the British public aspiring to them despite the well known build quality issues.
Personally, I believe it is a very obvious case of style (looks and toys), over serious performance and quality. If that suits it's target market than fine, but it leaves me cold.
The range Rover has always been a luxurious version on the Land Rover range, if you wanted truly utilitarian you bought a Defender, if you wanted to use it on the road as an everyday car you bought the Discovery and if you had the money and wanted the next level up comfort wise you bought the Range Rover. Dent the Range Rover out 'in the field' and it has always been serious money to repair compared with a Defender, and they have always been expensive to buy, of course they are harder to work on as are all modern cars, and of course they are more luxurious, things have moved on, but the essence of what a Range Rover is hasn't changed at all.
As I said at the start, what you're really saying is it doesn't fit what you think it should be, but you're wrong.
St John Smythe said:
Have to agree with this. I personally think that a Range Rover (if you have a family) is probably the best car you could buy. I'd love a new one.
I think most people would if they spent a month with one. A friend of mine was a real 4x4 hater, I mean one of those that slagged them off at any opportunity possible and with real venom.
He loves his cars and had a XK-R and his wife had a nice CLK500 cab. When his XK-R went in for work and they realised it was going to take at least 4 weeks to get it sorted waiting for parts they swapped the XF they had lent him for a Range Rover. We obviously took the Mick out of him for it and he was going on about getting the bus everywhere.
That was a year or two back now and what is he now driving? A Range Rover.
Still has his XK-R, but if you have the money to have a second car like that why wouldn't you?
ConorE said:
Alfa 156 Sportwagon. Sold as an estate, but had a horrifically small load 'entrance', so could only carry smaller items than the saloon. Very pretty though.
I must leap to the defence of the 156 Sportwagon, if possibly a little late.. I once got 2 and a half mountain bikes in the back - there was a technique to it. What it had over the saloon was that the rear seats folded creating quite a nice load area. However, despite the boot, I was underwhelmed with it. I think they messed with the rear suspension in the estate to make up for it being less rigid than the saloon, so on a bumpy B road the body control was comical / scary - it was all over the place and you just had to go slowly which seemed at odds with 'the dream'. Cost me a fair bit to fix things too. Not the best defence really.
Artey said:
Slow said:
What does a saloon 320d do that a estate 320d doesnt do?
Its a different body style, doesnt have to do anything new.
Saloon handles better than estate, because design of rear suspension is different. You're welcome.Its a different body style, doesnt have to do anything new.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff