Which car best epitomises style over substance?

[sealtt]

Styled to look like a rich man's car - obvious styling cues taken from Bentley / Rolls.

One of the worst cars I have ever driven. Had one as a 'premium' hire car in the USA, used it for a day before returning it as it was so bad. Terrible, terrible thing.

[TheHound]

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

[Slow]

sealtt said:

Styled to look like a rich man's car - obvious styling cues taken from Bentley / Rolls.

One of the worst cars I have ever driven. Had one as a 'premium' hire car in the USA, used it for a day before returning it as it was so bad. Terrible, terrible thing.

Dont these come with a 5.7? Thats got to be fun surely?

[anonymous-user]

TheHound said:

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

Mate had one of these (before kids came along!). They seem to get a bit of bad press but I'm not sure why. Sub 5 seconds to 60 and 175mph top end doesn't really come across as a car with no substance. Plus the noise, looks and interior were pretty special in my eyes. I'd absolutely love one.

[RobinBanks]

sealtt said:

Styled to look like a rich man's car - obvious styling cues taken from Bentley / Rolls.

No, that's bks.

Those styling cues are more consistent with 1950s/1960s Chryslers.

[ORD]

TheHound said:

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

If you don't think an Aston is pretty, it's usually got no chance. I don't really sign up to the mandatory love for how they look (overly chunky interiors, bulky proportions generally). Only the V12 cars make a case for themselves on anything but style, so I am with you on this one.

DB9, though, is a bit special Same for the V12 V and that thing that I think is called the DBS.

[300bhp/ton]

Slow said:

sealtt said:

Styled to look like a rich man's car - obvious styling cues taken from Bentley / Rolls.

One of the worst cars I have ever driven. Had one as a 'premium' hire car in the USA, used it for a day before returning it as it was so bad. Terrible, terrible thing.

Dont these come with a 5.7? Thats got to be fun surely?

And 6.1 litre.

I suspect there is far more to the story being told.

[300bhp/ton]

ORD said:

TheHound said:

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

If you don't think an Aston is pretty, it's usually got no chance. I don't really sign up to the mandatory love for how they look (overly chunky interiors, bulky proportions generally). Only the V12 cars make a case for themselves on anything but style, so I am with you on this one.

DB9, though, is a bit special Same for the V12 V and that thing that I think is called the DBS.

They all look the same. Not sure how you say you don't like the looks, then proclaim the DB9, V12V and DBS are great. Would seem rather snobbish.

[kambites]

sealtt said:

I thought the suspension and much of the architecture was lifted straight from the W211 E-class, so I'm surprised it's that bad?

[Wild Rumpus]

Opel GT with the 1.1L engine, looks like a Corvette, goes like a base model Kadett;

[ORD]

300bhp/ton said:

ORD said:

TheHound said:

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

If you don't think an Aston is pretty, it's usually got no chance. I don't really sign up to the mandatory love for how they look (overly chunky interiors, bulky proportions generally). Only the V12 cars make a case for themselves on anything but style, so I am with you on this one.

DB9, though, is a bit special Same for the V12 V and that thing that I think is called the DBS.

They all look the same. Not sure how you say you don't like the looks, then proclaim the DB9, V12V and DBS are great. Would seem rather snobbish.

Because I can forgive a very average chassis when there is a V12 to enjoy. I still would not buy one, but I can see the attraction. I find it harder to see the attraction of the V8 Astons - if you are going to have a heavy 2-seater, you need a special engine, and the 4.3 (especially) and the 4.7 V8s are not special enough, in my opinion.

Remember that I, unlike most people, dont really find Astons THAT good-looking. Nice, but they dont blow me away.

[white_goodman]

kambites said:

I thought the suspension and much of the architecture was lifted straight from the W211 E-class, so I'm surprised it's that bad?

Or was it the W210?

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

300bhp/ton said:

ORD said:

TheHound said:

Probably get flamed for this but a V8 Vantage (4.3 version)

If you don't think an Aston is pretty, it's usually got no chance. I don't really sign up to the mandatory love for how they look (overly chunky interiors, bulky proportions generally). Only the V12 cars make a case for themselves on anything but style, so I am with you on this one.

DB9, though, is a bit special Same for the V12 V and that thing that I think is called the DBS.

They all look the same. Not sure how you say you don't like the looks, then proclaim the DB9, V12V and DBS are great. Would seem rather snobbish.

Because I can forgive a very average chassis when there is a V12 to enjoy. I still would not buy one, but I can see the attraction. I find it harder to see the attraction of the V8 Astons - if you are going to have a heavy 2-seater, you need a special engine, and the 4.3 (especially) and the 4.7 V8s are not special enough, in my opinion.

Remember that I, unlike most people, dont really find Astons THAT good-looking. Nice, but they dont blow me away.

I thought the V8 sounded fantastic, especially through tunnels.

[MarshPhantom]

St John Smythe said:

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.

You've got a point with this one. Didn't they review one on an episode of Top Gear and the roof was a total joke to disassemble/reassemble?

We hired on holiday once. Much was made of the roof bars but there really was no need to remove them to enjoy the car The front and rear windows dropped into the bodywork and the roof rolled down into the boot space. So not a full convertible but a decent compromise. The mystery was why Citroen made the bars removable really.

[Willy Nilly]

white_goodman said:

kambites said:

I thought the suspension and much of the architecture was lifted straight from the W211 E-class, so I'm surprised it's that bad?

Or was it the W210?

It was neither. The only relationship between them and Mercs was the diesel engine.

[irocfan]

Willy Nilly said:

white_goodman said:

kambites said:

I thought the suspension and much of the architecture was lifted straight from the W211 E-class, so I'm surprised it's that bad?

Or was it the W210?

It was neither. The only relationship between them and Mercs was the diesel engine.

from wiki...

The Chrysler 300 was designed to be a modern interpretation of the Chrysler C-300 and the letter series Chryslers that followed, featuring a large grille, long hood and low roofline that was prominent on those vehicles. The styling retained many elements of the 1998 Chrysler Chronos concept car, such as chrome interior accents and tortoiseshell finishings on the steering wheel and shifter knob.[6]

The Chrysler 300 is based on the rear-wheel drive Chrysler LX platform which features components derived from the W211 Mercedes-Benz E-Class of 2003 to 2009.[7] Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design, and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system. The Chrysler 300 also features a double wishbone front suspension that is derived from the W220 Mercedes-Benz S-Class.

[GrizzlyBear]

white_goodman said:

the Alfa Romeo 4C.



First up it looks gorgeous and on looks alone could easily hold its head high in Casino Square amongst the supercars and Bentleys. On paper it looks perfect too. A tiny kerb weight, non-assisted steering, mid-engined RWD, an Elise-rivalling PWR and one of the most evocative badges in the business. It's not even that expensive for something with those looks and rarity. OK, a manual gearbox would have been nice and possibly a V6 but it still had the ingredients to be a modern-day Ferrari Dino.

No, I haven't driven one but every review that I have read has slated everything about it (engine, steering, chassis, gearbox) and puts it even below FWD coupes based on more mundane machinery. Such a shame. Another great-looking but ultimately disappointing Alfa Romeo.

Which car for you best epitomises style over substance?

Got to agree, when they first showed the concept car (with the headlights), I thought that is the car for me, and just hope they would release it normally aspirated, manual gearbox, with a proper handbrake. Sadly they changed the headlights, and kept the turbo, gearbox etc. So not for me, I am more than a bit disappointed.

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

from wiki...

The Chrysler 300 was designed to be a modern interpretation of the Chrysler C-300 and the letter series Chryslers that followed, featuring a large grille, long hood and low roofline that was prominent on those vehicles. The styling retained many elements of the 1998 Chrysler Chronos concept car, such as chrome interior accents and tortoiseshell finishings on the steering wheel and shifter knob.[6]

The Chrysler 300 is based on the rear-wheel drive Chrysler LX platform which features components derived from the W211 Mercedes-Benz E-Class of 2003 to 2009.[7] Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design, and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system. The Chrysler 300 also features a double wishbone front suspension that is derived from the W220 Mercedes-Benz S-Class.

So in the same way that beef wellington and beef Findus crispy pancakes share many components but achieve very different results?