Which car best epitomises style over substance?
Discussion
When you think of a car that offers style over substance, this is the one that automatically springs to mind. It still looks great even today IMHO but sits on the rather soggy mk4 Golf chassis.
However, I've driven one and whilst it is no sports car, the 225 is pretty quick and is capable of getting from A to B very quickly cross-country at 8/10ths if not with much in the way of excitement. Not all the reviews that I have read are damning either. The limited edition Quattro Sport was apparently quite a gem.
Before I get criticised for nominating a car that I haven't driven, my biggest disappointment was a 2008 Fiat Grande Punto 1.2 rental that I had the misfortune to drive from Dundee back to Manchester after delivering a new Peugeot 207 GTi to Dundee (I had a summer job delivering new Peugeots around the country). I got to drive a lot of small rentals that summer: Peugeot 206s/207s, Renault Clios, VW Polos, Skoda Fabias etc, as well as some leggy mk1 Focus Estates that were being replaced by 307 SWs as part of a fleet deal but after being initially quite pleased to have a Punto for a change (OK, it's only a 1.2 supermini but was by far the best-looking one back then), it turned out to be by far the worst.
I love small Fiats and have owned two (a Cinq Sporting and a similarly engined 500) and although they're not perfect, they do tend to relish being driven hard and usually feel quicker than the figures suggest. This one had no brio whatsoever though. Wooden steering and brakes, a horrid gearchange and massive throttle delay. It didn't even ride well or achieve good fuel economy either. That was a pretty miserable 6 hour drive back to Manchester!
However, it's just a 1.2 litre shopping hatch, so maybe one shouldn't expect too much.
I'm sad to say it but my nomination would probably be another Italian, 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?
However, I've driven one and whilst it is no sports car, the 225 is pretty quick and is capable of getting from A to B very quickly cross-country at 8/10ths if not with much in the way of excitement. Not all the reviews that I have read are damning either. The limited edition Quattro Sport was apparently quite a gem.
Before I get criticised for nominating a car that I haven't driven, my biggest disappointment was a 2008 Fiat Grande Punto 1.2 rental that I had the misfortune to drive from Dundee back to Manchester after delivering a new Peugeot 207 GTi to Dundee (I had a summer job delivering new Peugeots around the country). I got to drive a lot of small rentals that summer: Peugeot 206s/207s, Renault Clios, VW Polos, Skoda Fabias etc, as well as some leggy mk1 Focus Estates that were being replaced by 307 SWs as part of a fleet deal but after being initially quite pleased to have a Punto for a change (OK, it's only a 1.2 supermini but was by far the best-looking one back then), it turned out to be by far the worst.
I love small Fiats and have owned two (a Cinq Sporting and a similarly engined 500) and although they're not perfect, they do tend to relish being driven hard and usually feel quicker than the figures suggest. This one had no brio whatsoever though. Wooden steering and brakes, a horrid gearchange and massive throttle delay. It didn't even ride well or achieve good fuel economy either. That was a pretty miserable 6 hour drive back to Manchester!
However, it's just a 1.2 litre shopping hatch, so maybe one shouldn't expect too much.
I'm sad to say it but my nomination would probably be another Italian, 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?
I thought that the turbo version was supposed to be pretty good actually?Blanchimont said:
I'm afraid I completely disagree with the Grande Punto.
The basic engine is underpowered, but the 1.4 T-Jet I have surprises stuff costing 10k+ more.
And it looks great, I do agree with that!
I'm actually very relieved to hear that some versions of them were good. The thing is that 1.2 engine in our 500 was absolutely fine.The basic engine is underpowered, but the 1.4 T-Jet I have surprises stuff costing 10k+ more.
And it looks great, I do agree with that!
Some good choices but some odd ones too. Looks are subjective but I don't consider the likes of the Ford Probe/Cougar, Renault Fuego and Suzuki X90 to be very good-looking. In fact, isn't the X90 actually pretty decent off-road, so it would kind of be the opposite. Maybe I should have just called the thread looks good, drives crap!
The Vauxhall Tigra/Calibra/Frontera are very good suggestions. Nothing more embarrassing than a butch 4x4 which gets stuck in a wet field!
Perhaps the original SLK then? Looked like a million dollars but even less of a sports car than the Audi TT. They weren't really that crap though.
Much easier to think of cars that don't look very good but drive great!
burningdinos said:
Since most of my choices are already mentioned...
S197 Mustang. The return of the good looks for the Mustang, available with a live rear axle (in 2005!) and a 300hp 4.6 V8. Or a 4 liter V6 with 210 rampaging ponies.
It is what it is though. A Mustang, which is a back-to-basics muscle car, hence the live axle comes with the territory, as does tuning (the stock 4.6 V8 is just a blank canvas to be tweaked).S197 Mustang. The return of the good looks for the Mustang, available with a live rear axle (in 2005!) and a 300hp 4.6 V8. Or a 4 liter V6 with 210 rampaging ponies.
Isn't that a bit like criticising a 911 for having a crap boot or an MX5 for not having more than 2 seats and a proper roof?
I agree with you that a Mustang should only have a V8 engine though, although to be fair the later 5.0 V8 and even the V6 models had significantly more power.
Oh no, I'm starting to sound like 300!
chelme said:
You must be on PLANET ZOG:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/alfa-romeo/4c
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufactur...
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/alfa-rome...
http://www.caranddriver.com/alfa-romeo/4c
http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/alfa-rome...
The only reviewer that comes close to slating 'everything about it' is EVO Magazine, and they are just a bunch of Porsche fanatics.
Thanks. I'll read them. I want to be wrong!http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/alfa-romeo/4c
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufactur...
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/alfa-rome...
http://www.caranddriver.com/alfa-romeo/4c
http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/alfa-rome...
The only reviewer that comes close to slating 'everything about it' is EVO Magazine, and they are just a bunch of Porsche fanatics.
Edited by chelme on Friday 21st August 17:16
Just thought of a good one.
Not available here but the Chevrolet Avalanche.
I think they look pretty good and drive nice but it's basically a Chevrolet Silverado pickup with all the disadvantages of a large pickup (thirst, size) but none of the practicality. The box has a hard non-removable plastic cover, so you do have luggage space but only about a foot high and how do you easily access your stuff at the back? (I think the rear seat folds down actually). You can't transport any tall furniture or your snow-mobile/quad/lawn mower like you would in a normal pickup but it only seats 5! A Tahoe/'Burban will take more passengers and probably more luggage too!
300, I think you might actually have been spot on with the C3 Pluriel (although personally I think it looks crap)! The Plymouth Prowler was a great shout too. If ever a car should weigh 1 tonne, have a V8 and a manual shift, then it's this one. Great looking car though!
Not available here but the Chevrolet Avalanche.
I think they look pretty good and drive nice but it's basically a Chevrolet Silverado pickup with all the disadvantages of a large pickup (thirst, size) but none of the practicality. The box has a hard non-removable plastic cover, so you do have luggage space but only about a foot high and how do you easily access your stuff at the back? (I think the rear seat folds down actually). You can't transport any tall furniture or your snow-mobile/quad/lawn mower like you would in a normal pickup but it only seats 5! A Tahoe/'Burban will take more passengers and probably more luggage too!
300, I think you might actually have been spot on with the C3 Pluriel (although personally I think it looks crap)! The Plymouth Prowler was a great shout too. If ever a car should weigh 1 tonne, have a V8 and a manual shift, then it's this one. Great looking car though!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff