Which car best epitomises style over substance?
Discussion
White goods Korean hatchbacks? What is wrong with some people? That is the definitive 'utilitarian' car - sod the looks, it costs buttons and ferries people and shopping. The polar opposite of the OP's original proposition.
Most bases are covered quite well but Plymouth Prowlers always stuck in my mind as style over substance. Looking at the Wikipedia page the numbers are better than I remember, but a 4-speed auto and 1300Kg weight kills it for me in a car that looks like it should be closer to a Caterham than a Golf. Maybe more in the Alfa 4C category of 'good idea poor execution' than 'stick a frock on it and double the price', but hey ho.
Most bases are covered quite well but Plymouth Prowlers always stuck in my mind as style over substance. Looking at the Wikipedia page the numbers are better than I remember, but a 4-speed auto and 1300Kg weight kills it for me in a car that looks like it should be closer to a Caterham than a Golf. Maybe more in the Alfa 4C category of 'good idea poor execution' than 'stick a frock on it and double the price', but hey ho.
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?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.
300bhp/ton said:
MikeT66 said:
Surely there is only one winner for this....
Yet in the US it was registered as a light truck. And has a clever interior, that allows all the seats, including the front passenger one to lay flat to create load area, so you can get long sections of wood in. The parcel shelf is also designed to be load bearing and can be positioned as a barrier or multi level floor.The 2.4 Turbo one had similar performance and power to a Mk2 Focus ST as well.
So logically if it can match the Focus on the performance front, yet offer more versatility, it must have more substance than the Focus.
And a nicely styled interior:
fatjon said:
GT86
Looks OKish but the skin on a rice pudding would give it some trouble.
Surely the GT86 is the complete opposite? Project was all about developing a new chassis, powertrain etc and then they went "Oh sLooks OKish but the skin on a rice pudding would give it some trouble.
t, we better add a spoiler and some naff alloys and Lexus-style lights so it looks like a sports car". IMO very much not about style (from a fanboy). 16s and arch gap FTW 
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.
ManFromDelmonte said:
Johnny 89 said:
Surely the Hyundai Coupe is in with a shout? Didn't they come with a 1.6?
Possibly, I know they did a 2.7l V6 that had about 170bhpking criminal, the mk3 looked brilliant and gave you a choice of an anemic 2.0 that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, or a 2.7 V6 that was marginally quicker and drank more fuel than the Exxon Maldive.If it was RWD and had some hints of horsepower it'd have been a cult classic in my opinion. Oh well
.
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
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
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff