This article is about the Paris Auto Show. As per any auto show, there’s a lot of weird looking cars that look straight out of a sci-fi show.
Now obviously most of us are familiar with how the Corvettes or the Lamborghini’s look. They ooze speed and sexiness. But they cost a lot, too much for most people.
Why aren’t other automakers tapping into the vain-but-cheap demographic? I know there are some sports cars made by automakers who usually make a lot of family sedans (ie. Toyota Spyder), but where are the newer model Camrys that look like a Ferrari but cost $20000? Do those high-end brands have the car model shapes copyrighted or something? I would love to own a normal, everyday car that I can drive to work that looks like a race car. It shouldn’t look too different even if you add in a big trunk and back seats.
There’s tons of kit cars and aero panels and whatnot that you can buy to make your ride look spiffy.
I assume that the really exotic stuff doesn’t appeal to enough of your average Camry drivers to make it worth Toyota producing jillions of them, and as your article mentions it is difficult to maintain some of those cool looks with a 4 seater.
And of course there are some reasonably priced cars that look cool. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger for example, and some of the 2-seater roadsters like the BMW Z3, Toyota Spyder and Honda S2000. I think they all look pretty good. Sure, they don’t look like a Pagani Zonda but you can take groceries home in them or with the 300 drive the family around, and not everyone wants their car to be the vehicular equivalent of showing up with Megan Fox in a leather miniskirt and 5" neon high heels.
I want something that goes everywhere in any weather and never breaks down. So far that’s been a GMC Sierra.
I also want to look as anonymous as possible in traffic, especially to the police. A little silver car would be better in that regard.
When I see a Corvette or a Camaro, I think about somebody keying it or stealing it and I feel so much better in my ride. When winter comes and I throw that sand in back, I’m feeling rather smug.
Isn’t rarity part of the coolness factor? If a company made a cheap Lamborghini lookalike, and everyone had one, wouldn’t that take some of the fun out of it?
I just bought a car last month, and like always, got the most boring one imaginable. I briefly considered some of the exotic looking convertibles on the lot, but (again:() talked myself out of it. One of the reasons I don’t have a hot-looking ride is that I think old men (like me) look ridiculous in them. Sigh… maybe someday.
Imho, it’s because you are confusing two important ideas: how sexy a car is, and how sexy people think a car is.
Porsche. Sexy? Yes. But, you can get one used for nearly free depending on the age and condition. Stupid people won’t look past the brand name.
Toyota Camry LE. Expensive? Yes. But, again, stupid people won’t look at the brand name and think it is a cheap car.
If you want a sexy car, get the most expensive car you can afford. If that car is a Honda or something similar, spend half as much and add extras to a cheap car.
Also, remember these cars aren’t expensive just because of styling. The engineering and construction is much different than mass-produced cars. Even if you could copy the look you wouldn’t be fooling anyone. It’s like designer watches–people aren’t impressed by a watch because it looks like a Rolex. They are impressed with an actual Rolex. (Although ironically, for example, Rolex is far from the costliest or best quality watch around, but that’s just the name everyone knows. It’s the cheapest expensive watch around! :))
Performance-wise I don’t think a cheap lookalike “sports car” is going to fool anybody who knows cars. OTOH if it’s more an exotic body style, such as a an MG- or Morgan-like two-seater, that floats your boat, a kit car might work for you. Of course it still won’t fool anyone.
I understand that Excalibur was famous for roadsters that were generally quite good looking, except for the easily recognizable VW Bug signal lights on the front fenders. Still, I’m not sure I’d turn my nose up at one, myself. I love convertibles.
No. The thing is, cars like Vipers, 'Vettes, Ferraris, and so on are not easy to live with on a daily basis. They’re a pain to get in and out of, you sit really low, and there’s no space to hold anything, and the suspensions are usually stiff enough that on any typical urban/suburban road, you’re going to get your kidneys rattled. A couple of jobs ago, I was able to drive a Viper over a weekend, and by Sunday afternoon I just didn’t want to be in the damn thing anymore.
So the real answer to the question “why isn’t there a $20,000 car that looks like a Ferrari,” it’s because no one would buy one.
even a Ferrari is “mass produced.” Oh sure, there are some areas where there are still hand fitted parts e.g. weight-matching pistons and rods so the flat-plane V8 doesn’t buzz the whole car apart. But they’re still built largely of interchangeable parts.
My boss had a Jaguar, but showed up in his Chevy whenever it was in the shop. We saw a lot of that old Chevy. So we started kidding him about “how many vertical miles that Jag got on it?”
~~
There are people who think practicality is sexy. A woman in 4" heels in a Corvette is ok, but a woman with shoes she could run in? Whoa… And if she’s driving a Toyota with a bike rack and room for snowboards and camping gear? *… is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?
*
You might not be able to get something which looks as badass as those half-a-million jobbers, but you can certainly get something for less than 30K which you can have a lot of fun in. I just got back from driving the Blue Ridge Parkway in my Civic SI (2006 ed.) and had an absolute blast.
I don’t know but whatever you do, please don’t use those stupid fake stick-on side vents a la this crap. Especially when people stick them on the side of their piece of shit Honda Civic. To anyone who does this, I reserve the right to point and laugh.
Chrysler and Saturn had the Crossfire and the Sky. Honda has the S2000. Mazda has the Miata and RX8 (which is big for a “sports” car but I think it still qualifies). These are all more or less within the budget of someone who’d buy a new Camry.
Also, a lot of sports cars have huge engines that don’t get very good gas mileage, if that’s a concern (I don’t know why it would be).
One caveat w/regard to “kit” cars is registration. Just because you have “kit” 1965 Ford Cobra doesn’t mean you can register it as such. This can be a real problem when it comes to smog laws, crash standards, etc.
I recently read something about 100 unused/never-built upon-1965 Ford Cobra frames (with serial numbers) being found and sold for lots of money. Even though new aftermarket frames and kits are readily available, these would be like gold as a car built atop one of these could be registered as a 1965 model. Being able to do so would exempt the vehicle from all the aforementioned laws.
Because that market is too small to carry a model. The market for a car that looks great but performs like shit is quite small.
A good example was the Pontiac Fiero. Reasonably priced, sporty, mid-engine, 2 seater. A poor man’s Ferrari, right?. Except that to make it cheap GM used Chevette running gear and engine. It ended up grossly underpowered and was something that fit no market. After good initial sales, people found out what a gutless wonder it was and the model only lasted a few years.
It wasn’t a mid-engine sports car because it lacked the power and handling. But it had all the draw backs that people will put up with in exchange for that exotic car experience. It was cramped and noisy inside, got lousy gas mileage and wasn’t comfortable or practical in any way. And a person buying one was sure to get his ass kicked by any average Honda or Toyota 4 cylinder sedan of the day.
Add better suspension and engine you say? Then the price goes up so much that GM would have been competing with it’s own Corvette.
Performance costs money. How fast you want do go has a direct relationship with how much money you can spend. And it’s nice to be able to corner and stop well too.
My husband and I would like an answer to this question, too. The 1999 Tercel is aging fast, and Jim’s looking for a midlife-crisis-mobile - we basically want a 2011 Toyota Celica. Too bad Toyota seems to have no interest in putting out anything other than econoboxes* and SUVs. I think there is indeed a market for affordable performance vehicles - look at all the Boomers who don’t need four doors any longer and don’t want to pay $150 to fill their vehicle.
*I drive a 2005 Corolla that I’m very happy with - it isn’t as fun as the Celica would be in the mountains, though.
there are some, they’re just not necessarily two-seat sports cars. The Mazdaspeed 3 is a hoot, there’s the Subaru WRX STi, Ford will have a turbo Focus ST for 2012MY, if you can still find a Cobalt SS turbo, that thing is a blast to drive. Then there’s the pony cars; the Mustang GT/Camaro SS/Challenger R/T.
A low mileage Pontiac Solstice GXP or Saturn Sky Red Line would be a blast too.
