Why Don't More Cars Look Like Lamboghini's Or Ferrari's?

I doubt that many reading this can go out and buy a new Lamborghini or Ferrari - but my guess is many would certainly like to own one.

Now, I know they are known for their quality and powerful engines, but I think the biggest appeal is the design.

So why aren’t more auto manufacturers creating (far, far) cheaper versions of these types of great looking cars? These cars ooze sexy styling, have sleek designs and look fun to get behind the wheel.

Is there a reason most cars today look rather boring and same-old, same-old no matter who manufactures them? I mean, I know this type of car won’t appeal to families with lots of kids, or to some more conservative consumers. But it can’t be that hard to start offering knock offs that at least closely resemble these types of cars. It wouldn’t even be necessary to have 500,000 horsepower engines - hell, put in a Kia Sport motor!

Is there a reason they haven’t done this? Is the market for such a car that small, even with a (far, far) cheaper price, but going solely for the design?

Fuel economy and something called CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is the main reason. The average economical car of today looks like every other brand of economical car because the shape works. Boring as it may be, the aerodynamics do what they need to do and it’s all become quite predictable.

True sports cars like Ferrari, Ariel, Lamborghini, etc. are not going to come anywhere near CAFE requirements, so they willingly pay a “gas guzzler” penalty to the Feds. (and presumably pass it right along to the consumer) It’s generally a trivial amount - about $6400 for a Lamborghini Murcielago, for example, but when the car’s price starts at over $350,000, the optional floor mats probably cost more.

Supercars like Ferraris are highly aerodynamic, as well…they suffer the gas-guzzler tax not because they have poor aerodynamics, but because their engines are massively overpowered, and geared for performance, not economy, so they get poor mileage.

Sorry but I largely have to disagree with this. From an engineering technical standpoint, these types of super cars have extremely low coefficients of drag, meaning that they are really low gas sippers in plain vanilla driving style. Of course, if you slap on a monstrous V8 or V12 on that chassis, no one is going to do plain vanilla driving. See the Corvette driving mpg for reference. In fact, the corvette is really kinda supposed to fill in the niche that you are talking about

It’s partly a marketing issue. How you style a car says something to a consumer about how you intend it to be perceived. If the car doesn’t match what the styling says, the consumer may be offput or upset, even on a subconscious level. People buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari not just because it’s a high-performance car but also because it’s a status symbol-- it states “I am rich enough to afford this. That makes me important and/or sexy.” If you make a car shaped like a Ferrari but with a Civic price tag, people will label it a “poor man’s Ferrari.” And who wants to be labeled a poor man?

Also, in terms of body styling, they’re not very practical. Tiny rear windows and a very low profile means parking is a pain in the butt. Low skirting (is that the word?) means that you can only drive on flat, well groomed roads, or you risk grinding the bodywork and exhaust into the ground.

Do you wanna drive my Lambos?

You can’t fit a wife and children and luggage in it, if you do.

Because plurals do not take an apostrophe, regardless of language.

If more cars looked like Lamborghinis and Ferraris, Lamborghini and Ferrari would change the way their cars looked.

There used to be lots of cars that, while not looking like Ferraris, at least had a very distinctively sporty look. The Mitsubishi 3000GT, for instance. These type of cars seem to not exist anymore on the mainstream consumer market - the low-slung, sleek, blade-like design. There are still go-fast cars, but they seem to have a more jellybean-like shape.

Cars that look that way create expectations of performance that most cars cannot live up to at a reasonable price point. Ferrari and Lamborghini, among others, are looking for customers for which price is not an issue, so they can do all sorts of extravagant things that the high-volume car makers could not.

A good example is the Pontiac Fiero of the 1980s. It was a mid-engined two-seater. Cars with that configuration are immediately perceived to be high-performance, but the Fiero was anything but. It turned out to be a failure and was heavily criticized for its lack of “sportiness” in addition to its engineering/reliability issues, something highly ironic because the Italian supercars have never been noted for their reliability.

A GM car is expected to be so many things to so many people that it almost invariably ends up being a compromised design, but they also need to sell a million of them so they turn out vanillamobiles. A Ferrari is what it is, take it or leave it. The standards for each are so different that it’s like comparing apples and hand grenades. Aside from the basic things that define automobiles they have nothing in common.

the main reason, I bet, is that for the size of the car (like, say, an Aventador or 458) they are very “space-inefficient.” They only have room for two occupants and practically zero storage space.

Also, contrary to what The Niply Elder said, they get horrid fuel economy even when driven “normally.” Lamborghini Murcielago? 8mpg city/13 hwy. Their engines are peaky with narrow, high-RPM powerbands which tends to make them rather inefficient when driven below the powerband.

lastly, if anyone tried to make their cars look like a supercar, they’d be dismissed as poseurs. 90% of the appeal of supercars is so the customer can be seen driving a supercar.

Remember the fake Michael Jackson “Beat It” jackets? Unfortunately, I had one. Terrible, terrible idea. Ya don’t hear a girl going, “Oh, I prefer the cheap fake ones over the expensive, soft leather ones just like Michael has! Marry me, Locrian!”

Same reason there’s no 4-cyllander Lambo phonies.

Also, like others mentioned, economics, convenience, and let’s not forget insurance. I don’t care how rich I ever get, but I won’t have any $450,000 car. For what? To let a valet park it? To pay 20% to insure it? Thanks, but I’ll take 10 Honda CR-Vs over one supersonic sports car.

That’s why there’s rental companies. :wink:

Except for Lotus. You get some of the benefits of a supercar (looks, handling), but the cars are seriously tiny, have a low top speed, relatively poor acceleration and have virtually no luxury features such as electric windows or a radio.

Because most people use their cars as cars. Lambos and Ferraris are not very useful to the average driver.

Hardly, Lotus cars are deliberately small and agile with good power to weight ratios. The acceleration is excellent and handling outstanding. They are so well regarded in this respect they do outsourced work for other companies. They go fast by never having to slow down!

Ferrari has historically sold street cars at outrageous profit margins in order to finance their racing efforts. They’ve never been a big company, and have only recently started strengthening their ties to Fiat in order to actually try and make a buck. Lamborghini exists… well, I think because of raw Italian chutzpah, but they historically haven’t been interested in racing and only recently became notably profitable under VW, where they can leverage their technology in a wide range of super-ish cars.

Meanwhile, Toyota, GM, Ford, et al are publicly traded companies with a duty to their shareholders to make gobs of money, and the way you make gobs of money in the car business is by selling lots and lots of cars. Low slung 2-seaters ain’t gonna cut it.

To the extent that companies have tried - Honda Del Sol, Audi TT, Hyundai Tiburon (sort of), they prefer to using an existing architecture in order to cut down on costs. In most cases, that means a bulky mac strut suspension and certain hard design points (like the location of the fuel tank, the lower windshield attachment point, etc) that are cost-prohibitive to change, and these realities will compromise the shape and sexiness of the resulting car. Even cars like the aforementioned Fiero utilized a buttload of off-the-shelf components that resulted in lots of compromises in terms of style.

In cases where the companies have done a ground-up design, they’ve sometimes succeeded, sometimes not. The Miata is a nice little package, but it’s not exactly sexy. The 93 RX-7 is dead sexy, and frankly is as beautiful as any Ferrari of the era. The Pontiac Solstice is a great looking car, although it doesn’t exactly aim to be a Lambo.

More often than not, though, the cars either don’t make a profit, or they sell in such small numbers that they’re rather meaningless for the bottom line. In tough economic times like this, most automakers have shelved plans for similar niche sports cars.

Companies that rely entirely on the sports car niche often fold in rough times because they don’t have the volume to ride it through. TVR made sexy cars in England and they’re gone now. Lotus has a history of barely surviving, and their new CEO is fattening up their cars to appeal to a larger audience because he realizes that Lotus can’t stick around forever doing what it’s doing.

So, the tl;dr version is that it’s harder than it looks to make a car look like a Ferrari and still make money on it. And there’s always fiberglass body kits and 25 year old Fieros if you want to make your own.

Acceleration is good, 0-60 in 4.5-5.0 seconds, but it’s not Ferrari good. Top speeds run 140-150 mph, which is good, but it isn’t Lambo good. The handling is, of course, astonishing for a road car.

And fat bastards like me don’t fit in one. :smiley:

Agreed, tied myself in knots trying to get into a 1970s Europa once.

For reference here is the Top Gear “power lap” board, first Lotus comes in at #67.

Good points as to why it’s not widespread.

I do wonder though, why douchebags (think Jersey Shore) and chavs aren’t a sufficient market.

If you look at their way of dressing, sun tan and accessories they appear to accept having the poor man’s version of high status symbols, even if it looks fake and artificial.

Also, chavs have adopted Burberry (the style) without Burberry (the company) feeling the need to change their design.
Could it be that chavs and douchebags are not that common?