This is why GM is bankrupt
This is why GM is bankrupt
I followed this car for awhile yesterday, and I have to say...what an ugly-ugly vehicle! It looked like a standard Cavelier (sp?) with the only exception being the huge Subee-type wing on the back. It also looked like it was already equipped to go off-roadin'
one and one makes two, together we are free
dommo_g wrote:That's not a brand new Cobalt SS, that's the last version. The supercharged coupe. The new version is turbocharged, and only available in a sedan. And doesn't have that huge wing.
Hmmm...well as you can tell I'm no authority on that particular vehicle- It had dealer tags (hence the brand new part), was labeled "Cobalt SS" and had a huge wing. So I guess that was the "last version":huh:
one and one makes two, together we are free
Well, there's a big difference. The first Cobalt SS was pretty much a performance fail. I personally kinda like the looks of it. Just a little. I think Chevy realized they couldn't compete with the likes of the SRT-4, MS3, WRX etc. with the first Slowbalt SS. The new one looks exactly like a rental car, but is a serious performer.
See the problem with the Cobalt and SRT-4 is that they are just ugly. They come from a cavalier and neon. Already ugly cars.
Yes the Speed3 and WRX/STI come from regular vehicles too but they are nice or decent looking to begin with. They are originally decent performers that are put on steriods.
Same could be said for the neon and cavalier, they were given steriods, but look at their beginings. They are butt ugly, don't handel, and aren't considered "sports" cars in their most basic forms where the others are considered sporty.
That's just how I see it. I'm not really a big fan of most American car designs. They are just plain. To others though they are nice and Euro and Jap cars are plain.
So to put it simple, no matter what there will always be, if you will, a market for ugly.
Yes the Speed3 and WRX/STI come from regular vehicles too but they are nice or decent looking to begin with. They are originally decent performers that are put on steriods.
Same could be said for the neon and cavalier, they were given steriods, but look at their beginings. They are butt ugly, don't handel, and aren't considered "sports" cars in their most basic forms where the others are considered sporty.
That's just how I see it. I'm not really a big fan of most American car designs. They are just plain. To others though they are nice and Euro and Jap cars are plain.
So to put it simple, no matter what there will always be, if you will, a market for ugly.
dommo_g wrote:Why don't you look up old SCCA records for wins in races for the first gen Neon and for the RX8. Tell me who has more wins. Your 'sports car' or the butt ugly 'can't handle' Neon.
As you can see I did not mention anything about the RX8 in my post at all. I mentioned the Speed3 and STI and the cars they come from and that they are pretty much "sportier" in their raw form than a neon or cavalier.
SCCA is all about the driver and I'm sure there are more neons running than 8's. (I don't know for a fact it's a guess) Did those tracks have lots of straights or were they all over the place? Take 10 different people and have them run the same car around the same track. I'm positive that the times turned out for each will vary greatly due to different skill levels of driving.
Will this do? 2 RX8s got better times than a Viper. Why no neons on the list. Probably cause none made it out. I'd say that's pretty good for my "sports" car.
I've seen plenty of videos of my Slow RX-8 passing some FAST cars on tracks that are pretty twisty. The only chance those cars had were on the straights. But that's not really the point here. I said nothing about my sports car or which was faster. I was talking asthetics.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 116 guests