Bill Eastman wrote:
> To me, the basic questions of car design is whether it is efficient and
> whether it looks good. <snip>
That "looks good" part can be pretty subjective. The other side of the coin is
how much one is willing to give up to have a car that "looks good." In today's
market is would seem a hell of a lot in merely dollar terms as the rags now
describe cars in the $30K range as a "value" compared to their competitors.
The efficeint part is misleading. A full-zoot Sport-Ute is 'efficient' for
doing all those off-road things you see in the adverts. People buy scads of
them them (and they are hugely profitable) but they are never used the way the
image suggests.
The 'green' folks say the Neon is efficient -- and I think it is cute in a
'butt-ugly' way. I wouldn't want to own one, however, and I can't imagine it
would ever be a classic.
> So, most new cars are, by nature not original designs but more derivatives
> of other existing cars. Most are derivatives of the "flavor of the year"
> or the last car to be considered original, efficient and good looking.
> <snip>
It would seem that the 'Sporty' word has been stretched to meaningless-ness.
You can get a Chrysler Minivan 'Sport'. Also, the whole Sport-Ute thing doesn't
have anything to do with Sports Cars.
I think the sports car idiom is dead. I would define a Sports Car as fun to
drive, simple in execution, and uncomprimising in its mission. And that doens't
mean 'fun to steer'. It means a car that is fun to drive aggressviely. It would
take some effort to say that a Camaro, Mustang, or even a Miata doesn't fit
that build..
It would, therefore, be relegated to the 'other car' category in addition to a
commuter car. This would imply the car would have to be affordable to the
masses as a 'fun car'. I don't yet think the world is wealthy enough to afford
a $30K+ car to languaish in the garage as their fun car while they huddle in
the commuter car for the 9 to 5.
The other problem is that 'soul' thing. As in the Japanese are clueless at
building a car that has any. Well folks, 'soul' is a car that is charismatic,
has flaws, has eccentiricities that the owner lives with and chalks it up to
'soul'.
> I have heard people say that the XK-8 and Boxster are popular now becaus
> "retro is in." Hogwash. The new Taurus and the Z-3 are worlds apart in
> there styling inspiration but they have both achieved similar results.
> They are butt-ugly. <snip>
I happen to like the Z-3. What I don't like is that it costs $40K to get one
with a motor in it. There is no value. Whatever the market will bare is how
they price the things, I guess.
The Z-3 is the classic long hood/short deck like the XK-120, E-type, Healey,
MGA, (from Bill's favorite list) as well as the 1st gen Monte Carlo, Plymouth
'cuda, etc. It also maintains the BMW styling cues and has modern
underpinnings. I think it has unique looks and serious sporting flavor (with
the six) but I don't see how anyone can say it is a 'value'.
--
Bob Allen, Kansas City, '69CGT, '75TR6, '61Elva(?)
"Outside every thin woman is a fat man trying to get in." -- Katherine
Whitehorn
|