Which car best epitomises style over substance?
Discussion
lostkiwi said:
I'll jump on this one too...
Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
With that 'box?! Every review that I have read says it completely ruins the car.Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
lostkiwi said:
St John Smythe said:
OpulentBob said:
rohrl said:
Vince70 said:
How about the smart roadster..
Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Oh Lord. Do you even know what you've done?Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
S10GTA said:
300bhp/ton 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.
It amazes me how after these years, so many people are still so naive, or rather so dumb about these cars.24v MIVEC with 197hp and 7500rpm in a car weighing 1100-1200kg. In 1995!!
Civic Type R power & performance. 0-60mph 6.8 sec and 149mph.
As 300 has said, it was a 90's car that was side by side with the Integra Type-R in performance.
Sump said:
lostkiwi said:
St John Smythe said:
OpulentBob said:
rohrl said:
Vince70 said:
How about the smart roadster..
Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Oh Lord. Do you even know what you've done?Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
Feels smaller, lighter and more nimble than an MX-5/MGF and a lot more luggage capacity than an MR2. And better on fuel than all of by quite a margin.
As good as an Elise?? No, certainly not. But then again you can't buy an Elise for £2-4k. And as good as an Elise is at being a sports car, the smart is far better as a daily driver.
Sump said:
lostkiwi said:
St John Smythe said:
OpulentBob said:
rohrl said:
Vince70 said:
How about the smart roadster..
Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Oh Lord. Do you even know what you've done?Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
Have you owned a Smart Roadster? If not how exactly are you qualified to comment?
As it happens I've owned cars ranging from Minis (the originals including a Cooper S 1275), 1100/1300s, Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, Nissans, Mitsubishis, Suzukis, Mercedes, Audis (from S3 to A8), Saabs, Fords, Vauxhalls, Volvos etc etc (can't be bothered listing any more not to mention others I have driven that have belonged to mates - usually BMWs) and currently have a Saab, Defender, MINI and Smart Roadster on the driveway (for the use of my OH and I).
I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on when a car is charismatic, practical and fun. Smart ticks those boxes. Ask anyone who has owned one.
skyrover said:
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.
I'm guessing you don't mean literally cold? As this would be far more likely in Defender or similar....I'll fetch my coat.
Joking aside, one of its main "performance" attributes is its blend of luxury, refinement, on and off road ability etc. Its just a different performance metric.
lostkiwi said:
Sump said:
lostkiwi said:
St John Smythe said:
OpulentBob said:
rohrl said:
Vince70 said:
How about the smart roadster..
Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Oh Lord. Do you even know what you've done?Looks like a Lotus but with the performance of a Fortwo..
To be honest I quite liked owning mine I found the little car did turn heads.
Nothing wrong with the Smart. We use ours for trips to France and covered 2000 miles in two weeks with 3 suitcases. These can carry more than an MR2 MK3, or an MX5 and are better on fuel, handle well and sound great inside. Affordable top down motoring with decent fuel consumption, surprising comfort and practicality and bags of charm and charisma. There's plenty to there in the substance in my view.
Have you owned a Smart Roadster? If not how exactly are you qualified to comment?
As it happens I've owned cars ranging from Minis (the originals including a Cooper S 1275), 1100/1300s, Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, Nissans, Mitsubishis, Suzukis, Mercedes, Audis (from S3 to A8), Saabs, Fords, Vauxhalls, Volvos etc etc (can't be bothered listing any more not to mention others I have driven that have belonged to mates - usually BMWs) and currently have a Saab, Defender, MINI and Smart Roadster on the driveway (for the use of my OH and I).
I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on when a car is charismatic, practical and fun. Smart ticks those boxes. Ask anyone who has owned one.
Vince70 said:
But I have owned one previously for 3 years it's a nice little car even though the build quality and the main dealers are a bit hit and miss but with that horrid gearbox it's far from a quick little sports car and looks like it's a far more exotic car than it actually is which I thought this thread is about.
It's hardly a slug though; 82bhp and 750 kg give it a better power/weight ratio than the Panda 100HP which seems to get a lot of praise. You might as well slag off a Daihatsu Copen, Honda Beat, Suzuki Cappucino etc.
But a Fiat Panda is a small run of the meal family hatch and not a sports car.. And I'm hardly slagging the roadster off apart from the fact it has a horrid box which if you own one you will understand it's useless
I quite liked bumbling along in mine when the gearbox didn't get confused but it's hardly a fast car but I did like the chirp from the turbo and the sound of the 3 pot and whatever you say you can't take away that the car looks far more exotic than its underpinnings suggest but also a good call on the cappuccino and the beat.
I quite liked bumbling along in mine when the gearbox didn't get confused but it's hardly a fast car but I did like the chirp from the turbo and the sound of the 3 pot and whatever you say you can't take away that the car looks far more exotic than its underpinnings suggest but also a good call on the cappuccino and the beat.
kambites said:
Again I'd like to point at the Alfa Spider.
I'm not really up to speed on that one. Is it really that bad to drive?Puddenchucker said:
And the VW Scirocco,.
But the Scirocco isn't trying to be a sportscar, it's trying to be a hot hatch, so has less style for it's substance to live up to. You expect a hot hatch to just be a faster version of a normal car but you expect a sportscar to have been built from the ground up to be fun to drive. irocfan said:
how's about these two?
A harvest brown Rancho, you nailed it.My father had one of these, in this colour, it looked great and its 80hp 1500cc motor would almost get it to 85mph going down hill.... we had spotlights on the roof, which would be fun to turn on and appear like a truck to oncoming traffic.... it was geared far too low so he popped bigger snow tyres on it (also helping its pseudo offroad capability) so we had little idea what speed we were doing...... the brakes threatened to kill us one too many times so we willingly handed it over for a Fiat 132 twincam .....
Sad to say the Fiat was a relief after that crock, which even in the 1970's was shocking.....
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.
Ha - you do realise you're quoting Max Power don't you?! That was their description in their car stat summary table. God I think it's even worse that I remember that...
Vince70 said:
But a Fiat Panda is a small run of the meal family hatch and not a sports car.. And I'm hardly slagging the roadster off apart from the fact it has a horrid box which if you own one you will understand it's useless
I quite liked bumbling along in mine when the gearbox didn't get confused but it's hardly a fast car but I did like the chirp from the turbo and the sound of the 3 pot and whatever you say you can't take away that the car looks far more exotic than its underpinnings suggest but also a good call on the cappuccino and the beat.
Blah blah gearbox blah blah... Always gets trotted out but it's really not that bad. It just requires using manual mode, paddles preferably and a slight adaptation of driving style.I quite liked bumbling along in mine when the gearbox didn't get confused but it's hardly a fast car but I did like the chirp from the turbo and the sound of the 3 pot and whatever you say you can't take away that the car looks far more exotic than its underpinnings suggest but also a good call on the cappuccino and the beat.
It's no slower to change than a manual (especially it you have the latest software or a remap). I've done 50k miles in mine and it's not been the chore many would have you believe.
While we're at it Nissan Figaro. Slow as a wet week and more style(?) than anything else.
lostkiwi said:
Blah blah gearbox blah blah... Always gets trotted out but it's really not that bad. It just requires using manual mode, paddles preferably and a slight adaptation of driving style.
It's no slower to change than a manual (especially it you have the latest software or a remap). I've done 50k miles in mine and it's not been the chore many would have you believe.
While we're at it Nissan Figaro. Slow as a wet week and more style(?) than anything else.
Spot on re the Figaro. I love the style of them but the drivetrain is unforgivable. It's no slower to change than a manual (especially it you have the latest software or a remap). I've done 50k miles in mine and it's not been the chore many would have you believe.
While we're at it Nissan Figaro. Slow as a wet week and more style(?) than anything else.
Re the Smart, you shouldn't need to make excuses and allowances for a gearbox. It's a huge part of the driving experience, and so a bad one makes a bad car.
ORD said:
lostkiwi said:
Blah blah gearbox blah blah... Always gets trotted out but it's really not that bad. It just requires using manual mode, paddles preferably and a slight adaptation of driving style.
It's no slower to change than a manual (especially it you have the latest software or a remap). I've done 50k miles in mine and it's not been the chore many would have you believe.
While we're at it Nissan Figaro. Slow as a wet week and more style(?) than anything else.
Spot on re the Figaro. I love the style of them but the drivetrain is unforgivable. It's no slower to change than a manual (especially it you have the latest software or a remap). I've done 50k miles in mine and it's not been the chore many would have you believe.
While we're at it Nissan Figaro. Slow as a wet week and more style(?) than anything else.
Re the Smart, you shouldn't need to make excuses and allowances for a gearbox. It's a huge part of the driving experience, and so a bad one makes a bad car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff