Why don't regular automakers design "supercars"?

[Late Apex]

What I mean is, why don't companies like toyota, honda etc design an affordable car that looks like an exotic car but doesn't necessarily perform like an exotic?

For example design a car that looks like a gallardo or R8 but have an above average engine like a turbocharged 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I'm sure people would buy it just for the looks alone

[Aw614]

acura nsx?

[lostmypassword]

Probably the volume consideration. Why make something that would be a pain in the ass to make roadworthy for such a low volume seller, when you can make a billion Camry's and get a higher profit margin.

[BRealistic]

[2.0T_Convert]

I'm sure all the sheetmetal curves cost money which inflates the cars price. The fact it is now a 2-seater or near usless 2+2 further limits the appeal market. Also since this is a cheap car there is limited use of lightweight materials like carbon fiber or aluminum so now all that extra curvy sexy sheetmetal just adds weight. Then factor in the additional cost/work/weight needed to add the new phase of popping hoods for pedestrian safety..... low volume, high cost, little hope for profit.

So the question becomes for $30,000 do you want a Mustang GT or a Honda CR-Z with a turbo?

[C4 A6]

acura nsx?

The NA1s and NA2s performed just fine.

But I think it's because why would someone ever want to drive a car that just looks fast? *cough* FR-S *cough*

[BRealistic]

[Dieselstation]

I think what he's wanting is an economy car that looks like a supercar. The best i can tell you is that certain supercars look that way due to function. low slung hoods and huge asses usually indicate mid-engine layout. Which.. cost a whole lot more to make then a simple fwd layout.

But i for one would love a modern Opel GT. fast looks with simple performance.



or even a modern Ferrari Dino

[iJETTA]

Sales gotta cover the R&D, seperate assembly lines, and other various high end overhead. I'm sure the companies that have been doing it for years already have a history of working that into their bottom line under their belts. Not to mention in today's global economy for exotics that has got to be a gamble that companies not established in the market can't afford to chance it on. ...imho

Sent from my brain using a bagel

[BRealistic]

But I think it's because why would someone ever want to drive a car that just looks fast? *cough* FR-S *cough*

Is your ITR yellow?

[2.0T_Convert]

Is your ITR yellow?

His ITR is a racecar and way better than an FR-S dude.

[adrew]

[deagle]

stealerships are notorious for bait/switch tactcis/sales practices

entice u in is the first step

get a credit check and go in, even if you qualify, there won't be a car in stock in any of their inventory, except more expensive ones

deals too good to be true, gnerally are

but its worth a shot if your credit is high enough

[Aw614]

The NA1s and NA2s performed just fine.

But I think it's because why would someone ever want to drive a car that just looks fast? *cough* FR-S *cough*

Well the nsx sort of fits, in that it doesn't perform like an exotic b/c it actually can be used daily without issue

[BRealistic]

His ITR is a racecar and way better than an FR-S dude.

I really like the ITR.
Maybe Scion will release a special FR-S Type R model with all the sound deadening removed and stickey tires for an extra 3 grand.
Loose 100 lbs add extreme noise and BAM- you have the ITR power to weight.


And let's be serious here.
The FR-S and BRZ are cool looking sports coupes, but they don't look like super fast exotic cars unless you have been living under a rock for a few decades.

[ToucheTurtle]

acura nsx?

The NSX was pretty fast when it first came out I mean it was competing against cars like the Ferrari 348 which had like what 300hp?

[SchnellFowVay]

Audi TT
FR-S/BRZ
Z4
Corvette
R8
Hyundai Genesis Coupe
Original Acura NSX
3000GT
300ZX

Most of these have "exotic' elements about them. But most "exotics" look that way 1) because they are rare -- if they were more common the designs would not remain "fresh;" and 2) because the designs are completely impractical and would not sell in volume, even at low enough prices.

[deagle]

sorry, aboe was for a differnt thread

well, most automakers target mainstream market demogrpahics, which tend to be on the conservative side, so it has to have mass appeal in most facets

exterior looks may get overlooked in comparison to other characeristics

thats why so many surveys ask what three things you look for in a car, b/c results will vary

[10-25]

sorry, aboe was for a differnt thread

well, most automakers target mainstream market demogrpahics, which tend to be on the conservative side, so it has to have mass appeal in most facets

exterior looks may get overlooked in comparison to other characeristics

thats why so many surveys ask what three things you look for in a car, b/c results will vary

If that was true everyone would be driving around in something that looks like a Ken Block car (graphics only)

[cockerpunk]

[DedRok]

C.A.F.E. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

[cockerpunk]

C.A.F.E. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

CAFE is actually a perfect reason why the independent super car only company will become a thing of the past.

[BRealistic]

Regardless of how cool a car looks- most buyers still want something they are comfortable driving.
And that means:
-Seats not too low.
-Roof not too low.
-Good visibility. (important considering how most exotics have terrible rearward visbility)
-Easy to park (Again.. exotics suck at this)
-Not scraping on every speed bump.

The 90's to earl 2000's Mustang/Camaro sales showed how the one that offered less exotic performance and looks sold better because it was just easier to use as a daily driver.

[iJETTA]

Regardless of how cool a car looks- most buyers still want something they are comfortable driving.
And that means:
-Seats not too low.
-Roof not too low.
-Good visibility. (important considering how most exotics have terrible rearward visbility)
-Easy to park (Again.. exotics suck at this)
-Not scraping on every speed bump.

The 90's to earl 2000's Mustang/Camaro sales showed how the one that offered less exotic performance and looks sold better because it was just easier to use as a daily driver.

Then why stop making the Pontiac f-body??

Sent from my brain using a bagel

[BattleRabbit]

Then why stop making the Pontiac f-body??

Sent from my brain using a bagel

That's his point. The GM's had a lower, more laid back seating position, less rear seat room, and were grossly harder to parallel park. The SN95/New Edge Mustangs put the driver fairly upright, with great visibility, and had a more useful trunk(the F-bodies had a cavernous trunk with the T-tops on the roof, but the shape was weird). The Mustang sold better because it offered 85% of the exotic looks with almost no usability compromise compared to a less "sporting" coupe.

Exotic shapes require too many compromises for most people to use day to day. The most recent entry-exotica-esque rides were the MR2/MR-S, and look how they did against the more conventional Miata, Z3 and even the lowly VW Cabrio... The Toyotas weren't necessarily flops, but they did not dominate or define the segment.

[-DWM-]

To iJETTA
Don't quote a post without reading it, man.

[C4 A6]

Is your ITR yellow?

Is your RX-8 red?

[epbrown]

What I mean is, why don't companies like toyota, honda etc design an affordable car that looks like an exotic car but doesn't necessarily perform like an exotic?

I've had thoughts along similar lines about McDonalds. Why don't they have a fine dining version, where you have to be dressed-up to get in and they have a hostess, servers, tablecloths, china, and valet parking, but you still get a Big Mac with fries and Coke?

[FastGTi]

At first I was amazed the Corradorks didn't come in here whooping about their cars looking like supercars, then I realized they also think they perform like supercars.

[FBMphil]

Likely because the market for cars drive much slower than they look probably isn't all that huge. There's no convenience factor to cars that look great but perform like dog crap when driven every day.

[BRealistic]

Is your RX-8 red?

No, it's slow metallic blue.
But I wasn't the one poking fun at the FRS/BRZ in this thread.

[iJETTA]

To iJETTA
Don't quote a post without reading it, man.

I did read it, too many Margaritas man

Sent from my brain using a bagel

[dmorrow]

What I mean is, why don't companies like toyota, honda etc design an affordable car that looks like an exotic car but doesn't necessarily perform like an exotic?

For example design a car that looks like a gallardo or R8 but have an above average engine like a turbocharged 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I'm sure people would buy it just for the looks alone

You mean something like this but from the factory and not a kit? Looks like an exotic and comes with a 4 cylinder.


Ferrari by dmorrowzzz, on Flickr

I've had thoughts along similar lines about McDonalds. Why don't they have a fine dining version, where you have to be dressed-up to get in and they have a hostess, servers, tablecloths, china, and valet parking, but you still get a Big Mac with fries and Coke?

Or steak and lobster at the normal McDonalds at a drasically reduced price from fine dining and everyone you are with can have the standard burger and fries?

[-DWM-]

I did read it, too many Margaritas man

Sent from my brain using a bagel

In that case, I'm jealous

[thisisdog]

troll detected