|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 31, 2015 9:55:49 GMT
Simple question.. Which is better, a car that looks good or a car that does the job?... Jaguar. Looks good AND does the job.... or does it? Ford Transit Van. Drives like a car but can carry a car.... But is it FUGLY?.... I dont know where I want to go with this exactly, but... Having read a few posts in other threads, and that damn ugly thing the Cactus  It neither has the looks, desirability, or function. But do looks sell cars?... Hell yeah.... Ferraris and Lamborghini sort of rely on that, even the corvette at a push?...(Long push home?) So, it has to be asked, do looks sell a car alone, or do some people actually look at the reliability issues?... Better to be broke down in a Ferrari looking cool than drive a citroen?...   (Heck throw me a citroen if it saves the walk.... ever practical... maybe thats my fault.) Help me with this one, I dont know where the thread is going... The sat-nag is stuck in Swahili I think?.... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 31, 2015 14:17:33 GMT
I'm not a sports car person. I'll take function over form every time. I want a vehicle that is capable of towing the boat, large enough to carry a sheet of plywood (at least on the roof), and comfortable enough to carry 4 adults and a dog on a long road trip without needing a pry bar to get them out at the end of the trip and having them look like a bunch of pretzels. It doesn't have to go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds as long as it's capable of eventually getting there. I don't care what it looks like or how many heads it turns so long as it starts every time I turn the key.
A Brit friend of mine insists on driving nothing but an $80,000 BMW. Nice car. Looks great and it's FAST! Also handles the road like a race car (which it sort of is). Only problem, it spends 3 to 4 days a month in the shop.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 1, 2015 0:24:17 GMT
IT does come back to the statement that beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
personally, I will not stick with an unreliable vehicle if I have a choice. OTOH, if I have two reliable vehicles to choose between, I'll pick the one I like the looks of better. case in point, I was considering buying a Dodge Magnum wagon when my van developed problems - right up until I saw one.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 1, 2015 4:41:19 GMT
Several vehicles have been put on my do-not-drive list by looks alone...
Smart, g-whiz, IO (Toyota ultra light) and small Fiats.
Some of them are a size issue.. I just cant fold my 6ft2 frame into that required praying mantra shape to get in.
There are larger cars, anything citroen or renault, ... exception for renault trucks, who have reliability, unlike their petrol cars.
Prius, because they just look stupid, and some Volco cars with that black plastic looking back "hatch" that should be a door.
And American land yachts.
I just cant drive a car THAT big, not unless I have a large load to deliver....
I will not be to happy to drive a modern Ferari either.
Older ones?.. those with classic status, not so bad, but modern ones are just too much show-off.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 1, 2015 13:49:00 GMT
Several vehicles have been put on my do-not-drive list by looks alone... Smart, g-whiz, IO (Toyota ultra light) and small Fiats. Some of them are a size issue.. I just cant fold my 6ft2 frame into that required praying mantra shape to get in. There are larger cars, anything citroen or renault, ... exception for renault trucks, who have reliability, unlike their petrol cars. Prius, because they just look stupid, and some Volco cars with that black plastic looking back "hatch" that should be a door. And American land yachts. I just cant drive a car THAT big, not unless I have a large load to deliver.... I will not be to happy to drive a modern Ferari either. Older ones?.. those with classic status, not so bad, but modern ones are just too much show-off. don't get me wrong - if it's drive or walk, I'll drive what there is. but life is too short to buy cars with bad lines. that said, sometimes ugly is a virtue.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 2, 2015 6:27:51 GMT
What is that?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2015 14:22:40 GMT
It is the high performance concept model of the AMC Gremlin. considered one of the ugliest cars made in America. America's version of the Jaguar E-type. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 2, 2015 14:34:01 GMT
It is the high performance concept model of the AMC Gremlin. considered one of the ugliest cars made in America. America's version of the Jaguar E-type. At least AMC gave it an appropriate name. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2015 14:58:03 GMT
It is the high performance concept model of the AMC Gremlin. considered one of the ugliest cars made in America. America's version of the Jaguar E-type. At least AMC gave it an appropriate name. I always found it appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 3, 2015 0:44:00 GMT
For me, functionality is more important than looks. I would love to own a Porche, but that is out of my budget. Fore me reliability, functionality, and driveability matter. I don't even own a car if I don't know that it will do what it is supposed to do. From there, it is the better fit for what I am doing, and finally, if the first two are equal, I go with the car that is a better driver for comfort and handling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Sept 4, 2015 4:19:41 GMT
It is the high performance concept model of the AMC Gremlin. considered one of the ugliest cars made in America. America's version of the Jaguar E-type. But not as ugly as it's cousin the AMC Pacer  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2015 13:50:50 GMT
It is the high performance concept model of the AMC Gremlin. considered one of the ugliest cars made in America. America's version of the Jaguar E-type. But not as ugly as it's cousin the AMC Pacer scary thing is we had some cars in the 90s, that were considered good looking cars, that didn't look a whole lot different from the pacer. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 5, 2015 13:41:43 GMT
I think it's as individual as each person. Even the terms "functionality" and "aesthetics" differ from person to person. What I find highly functional may be overkill or not nearly enough for someone else and what I find to be aesthetically pleasing may be the ugliest thing you've ever seen in your life.
It's also a cultural thing, depending on what kind of people you surround yourself with. People might look down on you in some circles for having a car that does everything you want it to, but doesn't have a Porche logo on the front of it. Conversely, turning up in a working class neighborhood with a Ferrari can easily get you tagged as a pompous ass who thinks you're better than everyone else.
You can even buy yourself one of those mini cars and still be seen as a pompous rich boy in some circles if it has a Mercedes or Audi logo on it. Even the VW Up can get some crooked looks in some places if you're under 25 and you buy the version with all the trimmings (biggest engine available, A/C, electric everything, special paint job, big aluminum rims with low profile tires and Blaupunkt or Panasonic stereo system with touchscreen, integrated HDD for MP3's and built in GPS). First question in some circles if you drove up in that would be, "How deep did you have to dig into Daddy's pockets to get that thing?"
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2015 14:42:22 GMT
It is, indeed, a very personal thing, and a lot of young people definitely opt for style over function.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 5, 2015 15:29:31 GMT
I think it's as individual as each person. Even the terms "functionality" and "aesthetics" differ from person to person. What I find highly functional may be overkill or not nearly enough for someone else and what I find to be aesthetically pleasing may be the ugliest thing you've ever seen in your life. It's also a cultural thing, depending on what kind of people you surround yourself with. People might look down on you in some circles for having a car that does everything you want it to, but doesn't have a Porche logo on the front of it. Conversely, turning up in a working class neighborhood with a Ferrari can easily get you tagged as a pompous ass who thinks you're better than everyone else. You can even buy yourself one of those mini cars and still be seen as a pompous rich boy in some circles if it has a Mercedes or Audi logo on it. Even the VW Up can get some crooked looks in some places if you're under 25 and you buy the version with all the trimmings (biggest engine available, A/C, electric everything, special paint job, big aluminum rims with low profile tires and Blaupunkt or Panasonic stereo system with touchscreen, integrated HDD for MP3's and built in GPS). First question in some circles if you drove up in that would be, "How deep did you have to dig into Daddy's pockets to get that thing?" If you show up at a job site, it best have a bed. And I'm not talkin' camper or pimp ride. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 6, 2015 10:07:11 GMT
I have a friend as nuts as me who is doing a project.
He has a Mini.
Original why the hell do I have to explain its not the new style its an old mini said without a pause.....
Well, he is doing "old school", has a 2ltre injection out of a Toyota which is getting a little extra help and he is shoe-horning that under the body of a mechanically sound rebuilt body but with new subframes.
It is FUGLY.... it hasnt got no doors, and it hasnt got anything but the front windshield yet, and only two seats.
It WILL be raced.
Legally... he is taking it to the track.
The doors are getting new skins at the moment, the ones that came with it were a series of holes lightly held together with rust....
They had been replaced, but the fool that bought them had liked the colour idea of undercoat, so handt done a top coat, despite the idea that UNDER-coat is just that. and not waterproof. Its just to get it from manufacturers to the customer who will do his own paintwork....
This vehicle will be function over aesthetics.
It will have legal road going trim... in a box in the back of his truck.
It may even get a Test certificate that makes it road legal.... hence the road going trim.
But mainly its a race vehicle first.
He intends to convert it back to Road trim when he has had his fun on the track, if there is enough left that is... accidents happen...
BTW, that Video above?...
quote :- you know what I mean? (Lip-read, I think...)
He said that, but no I dont, because the music was too bloody loud and I couldnt make out a damn word he was sayin'...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 6, 2015 14:43:14 GMT
I have a friend as nuts as me who is doing a project. He has a Mini. Original why the hell do I have to explain its not the new style its an old mini said without a pause..... Well, he is doing "old school", has a 2ltre injection out of a Toyota which is getting a little extra help and he is shoe-horning that under the body of a mechanically sound rebuilt body but with new subframes. It is FUGLY.... it hasnt got no doors, and it hasnt got anything but the front windshield yet, and only two seats. It WILL be raced. Legally... he is taking it to the track. The doors are getting new skins at the moment, the ones that came with it were a series of holes lightly held together with rust.... They had been replaced, but the fool that bought them had liked the colour idea of undercoat, so handt done a top coat, despite the idea that UNDER-coat is just that. and not waterproof. Its just to get it from manufacturers to the customer who will do his own paintwork.... This vehicle will be function over aesthetics. It will have legal road going trim... in a box in the back of his truck. It may even get a Test certificate that makes it road legal.... hence the road going trim. But mainly its a race vehicle first. He intends to convert it back to Road trim when he has had his fun on the track, if there is enough left that is... accidents happen... BTW, that Video above?... quote :- you know what I mean? (Lip-read, I think...) He said that, but no I dont, because the music was too bloody loud and I couldnt make out a damn word he was sayin'... I hadn't viewed the whole clip, as I was late for work. just enough to establish it was show cars, or what passes for show cars in that part of the US. the last show I was at included a Nash Metropolitan (our version of the original mini) with a 350 CID (5 and change liter)V-8 hydraulic-pressed into the engine compartment.  it also didn't have a soundtrack blasting over everything. we also had a 1920s REO arrive under its own power. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 7, 2015 7:54:12 GMT
Whats the Hp Per ton on that, and will it outstrip the Toyota Celica in a Mini.
The Toyota 2.(something) turbo can whack out best part of 140hp and thats 249 newton meters at 3,000 rpm, before "Modifications", as in, you can re-chip the thing.
The basic mini weighs in at just over half a ton. Thats stripped of everything else you dont need... like spare tyre back seats and other stuff when racing it.
So 280 to 300 hp per ton..... of 20 valve electronic ignition of the best Toyota reliability can manage....
If there was enough space, I think my friend would put something bigger.
However, the sub-frame for this engine is a specialist make of Carbon Fibres and other exotic things, and he has had to flip-front the car to allow access and bigger engine compartment, (wheel wells have been bucketed in plastic...)this the whole bonnet is now carbon fibres and glass fibres with a plastic paint job.... you wouldnt know by looking at it, he has kept the traditional lines.
Its what you may call a sleeper, unless you count the huge exhaust system just about visible where it isnt exactly sticking out the back burbling along on tick-over.
How does it all fit?... the guy is an expert on jigsaws and tight packing, "Only just", and he has had to upgrade the fans and cooling systems.
I wish I was more of a mechanic here to explain it better....
Note, from what I can find, a Basic "Metropolitan" weighs in at 1700 to 1800 lbs, [one quote of 1,780 lbs curb weight...] just under a full ton, fitted originally with 1.5ltr on a 3 speed manual, so putting that huge block in makes some extra work?...
V8 "Lump", not being funny, but thats 2,000 lbs all told on the car, a whole ton, why doesnt it nose-stand when you hit the brakes?...
I note the styling was Pininfarina, Italy's best, so what happened?... didnt get it entirely right did he?...
Looks more like one of those water cars than a serious sub-compact.
60's throwback?...
Maybe.
BTW, the weight issue, "Soft-top"...?...
In a sub-compact....
How doesnt the engine twist it in half?... at a guess, if it had a roof, you could do away with much of that sub-floor strengthening, and strip down the weight.
If it had been Mono-cock framed, like the mini was, with solid roof, that would have increased handling, and maybe we would have a challenge?...
And yeah, that would be a "What if" if one of them met a Mini. (Both tweaked to the full of course...)
And that on a "road course" type track, not just a straight drag race, 'cos adding all-round discs to a Mini (lot MORE work) and fitting "Metro" type wheels (larger better wheels from the Mini Metro, and running kit) makes a Mini upgraded to better than you think, wit outstanding cornering ability.
For that class of car that is...
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 7, 2015 13:07:55 GMT
The Toyota 2.(something) turbo can whack out best part of 140hp and thats 249 newton meters at 3,000 rpm, before "Modifications", as in, you can re-chip the thing. . I remember when "modifications" meant boring out the cylinders, putting in oversize piston's, shaving the heads, and maybe even adding a blower. Now it means changing the chip. How sad. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 7, 2015 13:18:31 GMT
not 60s throwback - just 60s. and early 60s at that. actually earlier - Wikipedia says they were built from 1953 to 1961 - back when steel was the light-for-its strength space age alloy. - and it was built under contract by Austin.
meanwhile, the chevy 350 (350CID V-8) appears to start at 290 HP, and go up from there depending on how much hardware you want to bolt in.
here is your road course handling guide. (sounds like it is a modified version of the original engine)
edit: oh, and it IS a monocoque.
|
|
