Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

I know similar threads have been posted but thought I'd start a newer one.

I have now finally seen the following contenders up close: Ferrari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT, Bugatti EB110, Jaguar XJ220, Porsche GT1, Mercedes CLK GTR, Maclaren F1.

And my thoughts are - even though all of these are seriously accomplished supercars, they are rather bland. Face it - the Enzo is a HUGE car(same for Merc and Jag). The modern gadgets make it work rather well, but its not as fantastic as people make it out to be. (I like the styling though. Its just too big). The Carrera GT is bland (Although definitely a Porsche). An overgrown Boxster? The enzo has the flair that the porsche lacks. The Porsche has the sound... (Enzo sound good too.)
The Maclaren is pure and simple. So it does not shock as much. It is very low in traffic - I saw mine *underneath* another car! But it is most spectacular with open doors.
See where I am getting to? Take all these cars. Take specific bits and you have ingredients of something special, which none really grasp.

Maclaren performance, Carrera sound, Ferrari flair? I know the manufacturers are all different. Who would want a Jaguar that looks and drives like a Ferrari, or a Porsche 4X4(hehehe)?

Its just that in general these cars leave me cold. For this reason I have to admire Pagani - getting there, although I do not like them much.
If you want to make a supercar - top speed isn't everything.
I think the Veyron is one of the worst concepts ever and I am quite sure its going to be a uselesss behemoth and retell the sad XJ220 story...

Is there any manufacturer out there that can actually create something to get the blood flowing?

wat does that mean?

Not sure where you're coming from exactly. All those cars you list definitely DO get my "blood flowing".

Not liking supercars will put you in the minority on this site i think.. ;)

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

Are you saying you have a McLaren F1?
I can't really agree with any of your points, and as rob_e1 said you will on your own on this topic. :wink:

I don't agree with any of that. All of those cars are supercars and rightly so.

I think we need pics of your McLaren to illustrate your point.

You are right on one thing, Pagani is great, but everything else....bland cars??? :?

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

you apparently dont know shit about supercars. well u are entitled to your opinion, i feel it is supremely biased. the enzo is sex on wheels. although the styling is edgy, it still retains some of the lines of it predecessors. the CGT is as sexy as any porsche has ever been, great to look at, and not bland at all. and the mclaren doesnt shock? if i saw one in person, id have a god damn heart attack dude. hows that for shock?! also if top speed was everything as ur claiming it is to supercars, then how come these above mentioned cars are not after the mclarens 240.1 mph? cause its not all about top speed, its about style, power, and each brand pushing it to the limits. all these cars are awesome, something 'very very special'. i guess you should stick to purchasing chevy aveos, and ford f150s, maybe they will get ur blood flowing :?

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

Ermmm.. i think mine is a figure of speech. As in, my sighting :wink:

You could be right number1. Still an odd turn of phrase though.

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

hahahahah LMAO !!!

I gave up reading his post when there was a reference to the CGT being an over grown boxter....LOL...

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

just been to the pub so can't be arsed to flame you, callen did such a good job :wink:

A carrera GT passed me a few weeks ago. Wow that thing HOWLS..!
Even my gran would have been impressed, and there's no way she would have thought it was just a big boxster.. lol..

What the fuck are you still doing on JW? This is a place for car lovers, not haters. :|

I think his name says it all... ;)

Re: Another styling rant - at supercars.
 

I will quote (not exactly, I don't have an excellent memory) RH from TG when he drove the slr: "feel like a something years old"
All of this is your opinion, maybe your idea of a supercar is a rice-wing-modded-gigantic exhaust, etc. Or maybe not.
Please tell us what is your idea of a pure, simple, supercar.

As I have seen a mclaren f1...OMG :shock: , I almost shitted my pants, I was in shock. The enzo, even when I saw it last december... you feel... weird, but I don't like it that much
but...I'm a stupid because I'm putting way too much time and effort to this.... "topic"... :?

I never thought someone would ever disrespect Porsche - Ferrari - Mercedes - Jaguar -McClaren - Buggati - all in the same post, jesus christ ..... I could understand moaning about Jaguar or Mercedes or point out something about one of the companies but to describe cars such as Enzo - Carrera GT - as cars that cant get your blood flowing ...???

Maybe you should check your pulse ... I think your dead, and nothing is going to help you ....

Okay a lot of flaming so I will rephrase and say that most who replied replied did not actually read my post properly.

Firstly I own a Porsche 911SC which I love to death. I have driven in several Ferraris which are amazing, my favourite racing car of all time being a Ferrari 250LM and my best road one a 275GTB/4.

I know as much or more about supercars than most people on this forum and definitely do not hate cars. Would some of you even know what I mean when I say TVR is a great step in the right direction like Pagani?

Now for some of the questions. The Maclaren: The first time I saw it I was turning into a street, going uphill in traffic. I saw a "gap" in the row of cars and then realised that indeneath the front fender of a car I could see the bottom of that distinctive airscoop of the F1, so that's what I meant. Then of course I looked properly. (I know enough about supercars to identify these cars from small glimpses of bodywork.)

As for blood flowing. I saw the Enzo at the Ferrari museum in Maranello and was more moved by the 750 Monza next to it. I drove 100km to see a Carrera GT and great as it was, it was actually hard to pick out from all the other Porsches as it was parked at the back. Nothing to shout "Lool at me!!!". If did not know it for what it was, I can not say I would have been as impressed AS I SHOULD BE, considering what it is. Can you see that happening to a 959 for instance?

So I was in a bad mood because everybody goes on to death about these cars that can do amazing things, go a little faster and cost millions. And as much as I love cars, I just don't think they are worth THAT MUCH of a hype. So obviously many people here do not agree, but the idea of a forum is to discuss, surely?

I was not trying to insult any of those cars. I was just saying that they are immensely capable and they all have their great points, but they lack the passion they used to have in a major way. Even the Maclaren, which I would love to own, is a car designed to be as efficient as possible. Nothing wrong with that idea at all but don't you ever look at it and think you would like that nose to be a bit more this, that rear a bit more that, that ride height lower?

And on the Enzo: I spoke to a prospective owner and he said it left him cold, so he cancelled his order. He'd drive his F50 any day...So he cancelled his order. He is not a rich pleb - he races Porsches, owns an F40, F50, Porsche 956 and RSR. So I value his opinion.

But I think I should ask TT to scrap this post as obviously you do not want to discuss the possibility that current design ideas are not up to anything spectacular and exciting.
Which was the idea of this post to start with.

And if you want to flame me personally, do so. I will be happy to prove my knowledge and love of cars to you.

funny, you can't even spell McLaren right.

We have a rule here at JW. Whenever you claim you own something as expensive as a car you must provide pictures (with proper proof-owner's manual on the bonnet) or shut the fuck up. However, we can make an exception for you. When YOU say, "I fucked a goat last night and Jake, my wife, cut my balls off.", we don't want pics. In your case we would take your word for it.

Well I have posted many times before about my car.

http://e.co.za/Cars/photos.html
and http://e.co.za/Cars/Europe

I don't bullshit like many people here. When I say I have seen or driven a car I did.
I have nothing to prove by exaggerating anything.

And my own feelings about the car industry is just that. No need to get abusive because I have different ideas about cars and want to discuss it.

And surely I don't have to give the link to my car every time I mention it? Do you?

And the "several" Ferraris: The 365GTB/4 Daytona on the site, the 275GTB/4 on the site, a 308GTS QV (No photos), 330GT 2+2(No Photos), F355 Spider F1(No photos) with the only one drove myself being the 308GTS QV, the Daytona and 275GTB/4 will be driven by me within a month as promised by my friend, the owner.

A bit of maturity and careful reading wouldn't be out of place in this thread... :(

I do not agree with irrational_j on most cars mentioned but I do understand where he's coming from. When I compare an Enzo to practically any classic Ferrari or something like a 288GTO or F40, the Enzo looks almost sterile. From some angles the car looks great, but from others, especially head on, I don't really like it. I do however find it an amazing car for what it can do. But, faced with the choice between an Enzo or any of the other Ferraris I mentioned, I'd leave the Enzo. I'm not as crazy in love with it as with other Ferraris.

Even though high performance cars ought to have an efficient shape these days, I still think there are quite some original looking drop dead gorgeous cars around. The McLaren F1 you mentioned I consider a masterpiece, just like the Lamborghini Murciélago, Aston Martin Vanquish etc. Pagani also shows that a supercar can have a shape out of the ordinary (although I don't really think it's beautiful) in these times. The McLaren Mercedes SLR is another example. A hypercar with the engine in front of the driver instead of the other way around. However hideous I may personally think it looks, it shows there are still a lot of possibilities for a personal touch.

Maybe you just don't like the style of modern supercar design. Perhaps you'll like the supercars of the next decade, or perhaps you'll have to stick to cars from previous decades...

And I apologise for the misspelling of McLaren. I always get that wrong as the actual scottish clan is spelled MacLaren.

Thank you stradale. That was exactly what I meant.

Even though I wouldn't agree on the Murcielago. Recently when in Italy I was driving through a little village when a red Countach came around a corner. Even though I was in a Ferrari 275 at the time I will never forget that sight(And I do not like the Countach styling - I am a Miura fan).

I can't say the Murcielago does the same although I would agree its a very good supercar.

Ok, I have to admit, your first post confused me. I'll also be the first to say I made a mistake.

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything you have said, I can see your point. Here is my take on things:

There was a golden age of the supercar, and I don't mean today. Sure there are more super and hyper cars on the market than ever before, but then, that is part of the probelm.

Today, we have a slightly different take on a super car. They have to appeal to as many people as possible; I am going to use the SLR as an example here. There is no doubt it is a quick car, a capable car even, but it wants to be a comfy GT car come sports car, come missile, oh did I mention it is an Auto!! (j/k). The F40 was/is a no frills super car. The Diablo has a reputation of being a difficult car to drive: heavy clutch, stearing e.t.c. Little touches like this put my senses on edge just sitting in the car, let alone driving it!

Today, we have cars like the Murciélago. I am not going to dispute its ability, but I would have no problem driving it to work tomorrow. The same can be said of a lot of todays super cars (slight exception CGT). Now that cars have F1 style gear boxes and such like, a monkey could get them off the drive! As a result, they just don't that certain something cars of old did. There is little that can shock our society in terms of design. Nothing would surprise me: bar a hover car! When the Lamborghini Countach came out, nothing even came close to it in terms of design.

However, starting up a Ferrari 355, knowing I was about to drive it, was one of the best car experiences I have had.

In terms of where I would like to see supercars go from here: back to the roots! Maybe not quite as dangerous as the AC Cobra, but you get my point.

I would say your potty mouth got seriously owned on this one.

i agree with some of your points irrartional_i, but most of them i dont.

Some supercars may look bland, but absolutely ALL of them would stand out to any person vaguely interested in cars. Granted at a motorshow the CGT does look fairly bland, but when its on the road, screaming past everything in sight thats a different matter. It is probably the best looking recent supercar IMO.

There are many things that make a supercar a supercar other than the looks. Eg the sound, the perfromance, the technology, the exclusivity, the price....

Many parts of modern supercar looks are function rather than form. Take the amazing amount of downforce the enzo produces without a rear wing compared to older cars..... its insane.

Styling isnt the only thing that makes a supercar what it is, you have to take more into account when comparing supercars. Styling is just a matter of opinion, performance figures and technology aren't

Right here is why none of you kids even know what a true "super car" is. :P

The car that single handedly created this niche (which did not exist before it arrived) proves this fact.

The car I refer is not that great of a performer - yet it is the very epitome of what a super-car should look like, sound like and be like.

The Lamborghini Countach.

The is FAR MORE TO A SUPERCAR that just it's performance. (and considering to what great lengths y'all went to, to try prove this to me with regard to why the F360 is better than my Chevy - I am surpised you guys look straight past this when it doesn't suite your point of view)

The F40 is the ultimate car - the ultimate super car and the pinnacle of supercars.

The Countach is the original super car.


Everything that has followed is just a high-powered pretender to the throne.

The McLaren F1 is the last car to come close to this recipe - but didn't quite make.

So - considering the Macca F1 is the only car ever built with such single purposeness and vision and the stuff that made up one mans dreams (Gordon Murray) and spared no expense - yet even it has been unable to dethrone the Countach as the ultimate expression of supercardom -

...and the Macca has note been able to dethrone the F40 as the pinnacle of supercardom - it is not surprising that the clinical CGT or the soul-less Enzo or the committee-designed CCS or even the ostentatious Zonder are unable to.

As has been eluded to earlier, the golden age of supercars has come and gone will never be repeated.

What we face over the next 10 years is the age of hyper-fast cars.

That's all.

Hence the new term that has been started. "Hypercars"

But they are not hypercars... as in the next level of supercar... they are simply hyper-fast cars.

They have no soul. :P

And more and more people are harkening back to the golden era of supercars.

:) ;)

Well that's just great, but if you think supercars like the McLaren F1 and Porsche GT1 are boring compared to a 275GTB/4 then maybe you should go somewhere else.

The 750 Monza isn't exactly an ugly car...

Personally I don't think a supercar should have to be something like the Countach, completely scream-in-your-face styling and wild wings & scoops everywhere. Understatement is not bad, the rest of the car speaks for itself. Many McLaren owners like that the F1 doesn't attract huge crowds with flashly styling...

See what happening to a 959? It being mistaken for other Porsches in the parking lot? Yes, definitely, it has the same basic lines as a 911, and its looks don't exactly scream supercar...and it certainly can't be considered to have the low & wide proportions of most supercars. So I really don't see your point, its ok for the 959 to have relatively plain styling, but if the CGT doesn't reach out and grab you by the neck and make you look its a failure in terms of 'passion'?

What do you base a supercar's 'passion' on? Looks alone? I'm not saying they aren't a very big part, but I have not heard anyone call the McLaren F1's exhaust note 'boring' or sleep-inducing...

Well, that was an improvement from the opening post. Still, I don't see why you think the looks have to be spectacular...and by that I am assuming you mean, grab your attention with big flash...for a supercar to have passion. I understand you have different opinions, but how many people have you heard talk about the CGT's driving experience as boring? I've heard people complain about the clutch, and that the suspension is too stiff, but not a single person has said it didn't get their heart beating faster when they drove it, so I really don't see where you're coming from.

Come on though, when you say something like this to a bunch of people who absolutely love super-cars, what do you expect, everyone to suddenly profess your genius?


Hmmm....

Firstly, i never stated performance is the only thing neccesary for a supercar. But it is neccesary. You have no performance in comparison to other cars of a similar era and you are not a supercar.

Maybe so, but the fact that all these recent high performance cars aren't supercars in your opinion, is entirely that, your opinion.

Just as many posters of the enzo will be on kids bedrooms walls just as posters of the countach were back then.

The golden era for supercars has indeed been and gone.

But the newer modern era of supercars has brought us 6 or 7 in the past 5 years when before only one came around every so often. Therefore this newer era that has just been is arguarbly the better one.

Most of what you said is your opinion. The fact that the CGT is "clinical" is down to the people who made and designed it - the germans, this does not mean its no less of a supercar than any other.

The F40 is no closer to the "epitome" of supercars that is the countach than the enzo is.... except in respect to time.

Since you've drivin every single car you've just mentioned and you can tell us how well it performs.... Get a life, or should I say license? And some money, then test drive each and every car you've just mentioned and then you can come back and talk, untill then stfu. Oh btw it seems you're 13 (can provide a link), so this leads me to, why the fuck are you posting like you've driven each car. Stop reading magazines and go experience each car. Oh wait, you can't, mommy has got to take you to soccer practice first, then she might let you go see that "contouch" on the corner of the street. kids under 16 shouldn't be allowed to post here.

Well - of the cars I metioned - the only I have not been in is a Macca F1.

The F40 was a doddle in 1987 and an LP500 sometime in 1989...

BTW, please provide the link to proof I am 13.. :P ;)

In the mean time I will just play with myself.. uhm I mean my car... :)

I will give irrational his dues ... he gives a good rebuttle ... people are just willing to be emotional and rant and rave, he gave the reasons why he believed what he believes. I respect that.

There ya go... see - we can all get along - Rodney was right afterall ;)

You cant argue with common sense ...

I definitely do not agree with RC on this subject...but holy shit, that was an ignorant post by you! I think you are the one who is 13... Why don't you take some time to look around this forum...or maybe in RC's sig...before you make anymore stupid comments LOL.

Oh btw RC, the Miura is the original supercar. ;)

always entitled to your opinions... for example, i really dont like the zonda, but it is something unique. others love it. cant argue with that.

if one was to mention the fact they thought the Enzo was 'cold' so he cancelled his order... what made it cold? various degrees of TC and adjustable suspension? no Maneul gearbox available? nothing but miles of carbon fiber? ok, ill disagree, but allow such comments ;) so what that he races porshes, owns an F40/F50... those are all amazing cars, but really... what does cold mean?

a CGT looks like a Boxter?
again, the opinion game, no matter how incorrect it is :P seeing one next to a boxter might help pointe that out... also, i think its impossible for Porsche to create a car that doesnt look like a Porshe. especially when the car is designed to be used every day, has a great (among hypercar ranks) interior, and has the best, and most designed chassis currently in a production car.
but looks like an overgrown boxter? bah! not in the least

the mclaren f1... ok, ill agree with you on this one. i can identify its body work as well ;) although, this car is a rip IMO as well for many reasons... its hard to call it a production vehcle with so few produced :roll:

right on

Nah - the Muira is one awesome car.. but is to much like the rest of the swoopy cars of it's day.. ;)

The LP looked like nothing else... and nothing else has ever looked like it.. :) ;)

Psh...

First mid-engine road car...that's something a bit off the beaten path isn't it? :P

Well - not quite the first mid-engined car - so being the first road car with such a layout deserves a little credit... but not a lot :P

I mean the 250LM had the old engine out back... ;)

Well, the shock that the Miura chassis caused in the automotive world was pretty big. Everyone knew Lamborghini was going to turn it into a road car, but all the public saw was a chassis only seen in racing until then. The Countach's looks were far ahead of its time, but with the Miura it was its concept and chassis that was such a big step.

I'd like to say one more thing. This topic, like it says in the title, is about STYLING! A lot of people that have responded seem to think that irrational_i thinks that the supercars he mentioned are not good cars in terms of handling, power, sound etc. But that's not what this thread is about!