VWVortex.com - Lowered/Stanced Ferarris.. Yay or Nay?
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
    Results 51 to 75 of 86

    Thread: Lowered/Stanced Ferarris.. Yay or Nay?

    1. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 08:15 AM #51
      Quote Originally Posted by Iroczgirl View Post
      To each their own. And it's not like I can afford a Ferrari anyway.
      As my mom used to tell me all the time good advice right here
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 08:18 AM #52
      Quote Originally Posted by joeyfrost View Post
      Its purposefully built.
      So was every car in the first post, you just don't agree with the purpose.

      And we already look back at every generation of car modifications and say what the Lord were they doing about some aspect of it.

    4. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 08:26 AM #53
      Quote Originally Posted by chris86vw View Post
      So was every car in the first post, you just don't agree with the purpose.

      And we already look back at every generation of car modifications and say what the Lord were they doing about some aspect of it.
      I disagree. It serves an audience, not a purpose.
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    5. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 08:29 AM #54
      Quote Originally Posted by joeyfrost View Post
      I disagree. It serves an audience, not a purpose.
      If it was built for an audience then that is it's purpose, you know if we're going to actually use words how they are defined and all and not just make stuff up on the fly.

      You don't agree with the purpose, which is fine.

    6. Member KingUnderpants's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 8th, 2004
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      2,383
      Vehicles
      1996 Porsche 911, 1988 Porsche 944, 2012 VW GTI
      07-11-2019 08:30 AM #55
      Quote Originally Posted by joeyfrost View Post
      As my mom used to tell me all the time good advice right here
      My mom used to tell me the same, but i bet my mom hasn't seen a lowered/stanced Ferrari.

    7. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 08:32 AM #56
      Agree to disagree, for the purpose of the post and nothing else, thats my opinion.

      We’re all car folk and obsessive to say the least like I am so at the end of the day, if it’s on rubber or moves (even flies) I’m all about it and can dig it.
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    8. Member Nealric's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 16th, 2013
      Posts
      6,974
      Vehicles
      '16 WRX STI, Turbo S3 Alfa Spider, Family Truckster
      07-11-2019 08:32 AM #57


      Cars that are lower than stock as part of a track or racing setup are fine. Cars that are lower for looks are stupid- even more so when they are done in a way that neuters their performance potential.

    9. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 08:33 AM #58
      Quote Originally Posted by KingUnderpants View Post
      My mom used to tell me the same, but i bet my mom hasn't seen a lowered/stanced Ferrari.
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    10. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 08:49 AM #59
      Quote Originally Posted by joeyfrost View Post
      Agree to disagree, for the purpose of the post and nothing else, thats my opinion.
      Purpose? my opinion is your post had no purpose and was just to serve an audience.

    11. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 09:02 AM #60
      Quote Originally Posted by chris86vw View Post
      Purpose? my opinion is your post had no purpose and was just to serve an audience.
      Says the one who has neither yayed or nayed yet. Why are you so butt hurt about everyones opinion? I said what i thought with reasoning. You keep dissin everyones input. Yay or nay already and be done.

      Ill do it for you..

      Chris86vw: “YAY”
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    12. Member Chris_V's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 18th, 2009
      Location
      Pikesville, MD
      Posts
      17,880
      Vehicles
      '13 Volt, '05 330ci ZHP, '02 Suburban 2500LT
      07-11-2019 09:10 AM #61
      Quote Originally Posted by fiftysomething View Post
      Nay to ANY car lowered or stanced, regardless of model or brand. It looks stupid AF.
      Quote Originally Posted by Nealric View Post

      Cars that are lower than stock as part of a track or racing setup are fine. Cars that are lower for looks are stupid- even more so when they are done in a way that neuters their performance potential.
      Since both of you have moved on from just the Ferraris in the OP to ANY car... So what exactly was the performance potential of a '50 Mercury, or a 36 Ford, a '63 Impala, or even my old '62 Falcon? Is their original track performance ruined by making them lowriders? Prove that you're not close minded, insulting morons...







      "Like a fine Detroit wine, this vehicle has aged to budgetary perfection"

    13. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 09:11 AM #62
      Quote Originally Posted by joeyfrost View Post
      Says the one who has neither yayed or nayed yet. Why are you so butt hurt about everyones opinion? I said what i thought with reasoning. You keep dissin everyones input. Yay or nay already and be done.

      Ill do it for you..

      Chris86vw: “YAY”
      Had you read the thread you'd have seen I did comment and my opinion was not yay.

      And for fks sake you proved point even by claiming your posts had some sort of purpose.

    14. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 09:15 AM #63
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris_V View Post
      Since both of you have moved on from just the Ferraris in the OP to ANY car... So what exactly was the performance potential of a '50 Mercury, or a 36 Ford, a '63 Impala, or even my old '62 Falcon? Is their original track performance ruined by making them lowriders? Prove that you're not close minded, insulting morons...
      "That's different"...."they had a purpose"...

    15. Member Dieselstation's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 15th, 2001
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      10,142
      Vehicles
      www.speed-driven.com
      07-11-2019 09:20 AM #64
      I'm about to be super sacrilegious up in here, but my realistic Ferrari would be a lowered (really low but not stanced) 308 or 328 or 355, with a Chevy LSx engine, and some nice shiny forged wheels. Maybe on air too.
      Speed-Driven Wallpapers: http://www.speed-driven.com

    16. Member joeyfrost's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2017
      Location
      Greater NYC
      Posts
      473
      Vehicles
      MK6 Golf R
      07-11-2019 09:21 AM #65
      So much for yay/nay ferraris... and chris i read through the thread twice before making that comment. You have neither yayed or nayed. Have a good one this thread is no longer any fun with guys so damn sour. Sorry to the op but you know u opened up this can of worms!
      Last edited by joeyfrost; 07-11-2019 at 09:27 AM.
      MKVI Golf R
      Stage 2+
      IG: Charlotte.Mk6R

    17. Member Nealric's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 16th, 2013
      Posts
      6,974
      Vehicles
      '16 WRX STI, Turbo S3 Alfa Spider, Family Truckster
      07-11-2019 09:25 AM #66
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris_V View Post
      Since both of you have moved on from just the Ferraris in the OP to ANY car... So what exactly was the performance potential of a '50 Mercury, or a 36 Ford, a '63 Impala, or even my old '62 Falcon? Is their original track performance ruined by making them lowriders? Prove that you're not close minded, insulting morons...
      Sorry, but low riders are not my cup of tea either. It's not ruining the "high performance" nature, but it is ruining the comfort and utility of the vehicle. My aesthetic tastes pretty strongly favor a "form follows function" mindset. A '50 Mercury was a luxury car. Any modifications should make it more luxurious.

      I mean, I'm not going to run someone out on a rail for doing it (as long as its not endangering the safety of others). But that doesn't mean I like it.

    18. 07-11-2019 09:29 AM #67
      Quote Originally Posted by iliveoncaffiene View Post
      F40 at the top? Yeap.
      Every other one? Nope. Nu-uh.
      Exactly!

    19. 07-11-2019 09:35 AM #68
      Quote Originally Posted by Nealric View Post
      Sorry, but low riders are not my cup of tea either.
      Well then you are a bad person and in no way a true auto enthusiast.

    20. Member Chris_V's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 18th, 2009
      Location
      Pikesville, MD
      Posts
      17,880
      Vehicles
      '13 Volt, '05 330ci ZHP, '02 Suburban 2500LT
      07-11-2019 09:35 AM #69
      Quote Originally Posted by Nealric View Post
      Sorry, but low riders are not my cup of tea either. It's not ruining the "high performance" nature, but it is ruining the comfort and utility of the vehicle. My aesthetic tastes pretty strongly favor a "form follows function" mindset. A '50 Mercury was a luxury car. Any modifications should make it more luxurious.

      I mean, I'm not going to run someone out on a rail for doing it (as long as its not endangering the safety of others). But that doesn't mean I like it.
      My Falcon was 4" lower than stock, it rode like stock, too, and still carried 5 people just fine (did it many times). It was not a luxury car, nor was it a performance car. it was a $700 fun car to be in, and its purpose was to make me smile when I drove it. I want you to tell me what the performance/ability it had in stock form that was ruined by it. You're dodging the issue. AND showing your lack of direct experience. Also not proving that you're not closed minded.

      BTW, the '50 Mercury was NOT a luxury car. Not by a long shot. Neither was the '36 Ford pictured.
      "Like a fine Detroit wine, this vehicle has aged to budgetary perfection"

    21. Member Chris_V's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 18th, 2009
      Location
      Pikesville, MD
      Posts
      17,880
      Vehicles
      '13 Volt, '05 330ci ZHP, '02 Suburban 2500LT
      07-11-2019 09:40 AM #70
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      Well then you are a bad person and in no way a true auto enthusiast.
      There's a huge difference between saying something is "not your cup of tea," and saying they are "stupid," which is how he started this.
      "Like a fine Detroit wine, this vehicle has aged to budgetary perfection"

    22. 07-11-2019 09:42 AM #71
      Lowering = Yay
      Stance = Nay
      Quote Originally Posted by Captain Picard, Hide and Q
      What he might say with irony, I say with conviction. What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god!

    23. 07-11-2019 09:45 AM #72
      Dont mind the lowering, bodykits or different choices of wheels, not a fan of stance and excessive amounts of camber

    24. Member Nealric's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 16th, 2013
      Posts
      6,974
      Vehicles
      '16 WRX STI, Turbo S3 Alfa Spider, Family Truckster
      07-11-2019 09:48 AM #73
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris_V View Post
      My Falcon was 4" lower than stock, it rode like stock, too, and still carried 5 people just fine (did it many times). It was not a luxury car, nor was it a performance car. it was a $700 fun car to be in, and its purpose was to make me smile when I drove it. I want you to tell me what the performance/ability it had in stock form that was ruined by it. You're dodging the issue. AND showing your lack of direct experience. Also not proving that you're not closed minded.

      BTW, the '50 Mercury was NOT a luxury car. Not by a long shot. Neither was the '36 Ford pictured.
      I suppose if it makes you happy, fine. Still won't make me like it. There is no way you can lower a car 4 inches without reducing suspension travel and ground clearance. More likely to scrape on speed bumps, potholes. If you didn't correct the suspension geometry, lowering a car 4 inches will usually cause some nasty bump steer. You are realistically looking at re engineering the entire suspension to lower a car that much properly.

    25. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 09:56 AM #74
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris_V View Post
      My Falcon was 4" lower than stock, it rode like stock, too, and still carried 5 people just fine (did it many times). It was not a luxury car, nor was it a performance car. it was a $700 fun car to be in, and its purpose was to make me smile when I drove it. I want you to tell me what the performance/ability it had in stock form that was ruined by it. You're dodging the issue. AND showing your lack of direct experience. Also not proving that you're not closed minded.
      .
      I bagged my bagged semi luxury wagon dropping it 3-4" and not only improved it's handling but also improved the ride and made it more functional ( for my needs.. it can't really off-road anymore) and more reliable. Not to mention it was cheaper to fix the way I did .

      Not into cambered wheels not into "stance" yet never had a car on stock suspension or stock wheels. Think my ram was the only vehicle I owned untouched in that department.


      And your examples above also show this isn't new, despite claims here. I had a 60 Impala in the other day owned by a 75 year old man who commented on how much he loves the stance of his car, it's actually kind of miserable to drive and isn't even low. My shop landlords 39 Packard is a dream to drive, 70+ top down on the highway having a conversation just last week.. but it's definitely a car you go what In The Lord were those guys thinking in the 90/00s...

    26. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      22,693
      07-11-2019 10:03 AM #75
      Quote Originally Posted by Nealric View Post
      I suppose if it makes you happy, fine. Still won't make me like it. There is no way you can lower a car 4 inches without reducing suspension travel and ground clearance. More likely to scrape on speed bumps, potholes. If you didn't correct the suspension geometry, lowering a car 4 inches will usually cause some nasty bump steer. You are realistically looking at re engineering the entire suspension to lower a car that much properly.
      My allroad is lowered 4" and has the exact same amount of travel as the stock suspension, and if the parts were used on the a6 they were intended for would actually increase suspension travel over stock. I spent days measuring and adjusting to ensure that it even retained the ability to use all 4 stock level control modes, just at a default of quite a bit lower.

      Making sure it is done right is neither impossible not hard. Some of the examples he posted probably do have fully re-engineered suspension. Improving on what was impossible to do 60+ years ago.

    Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •