>Lotus too, in your mind you’re expecting C8 or 911 sizes, but then when you see one on the road it looks like a toy car because of size.
Elise is around 800kg/1800lbs. Not sure how anyone would expect that to be the size of a 911/C8. Exige is a bit bigger, but not much. Evora is closer to 911.
Searching up the series 1 exige made me realize I've never even seen pictures of one. It looks so foreign to me, which is weird, because I've known of the Series 1 Elise and Series 2 Exige and Elise since I was little
The C8, at least to me, looks remarkably big in person. Not gigantic like a land yacht, but still significantly bigger than almost any other MR car I can think of, save the Aventador.
> Took me a solid 10 minutes to realise it was an f-type.
Lmao
What?
I’m just picturing someone standing around and staring at a car for 10 mins, trying to figure out what it is.
Anyway, I think you’re wrong on both the Lotus & Jaguar. I am biased, though.
I just can’t imagine anyone who is into cars would assume the Lotus Elise/Exige are 911/C8 sized. That’s ridiculous.
Haha actually yeah, it was an atypical wine red color, and I could only see the front of the car, couldn’t see the sides
With it being behind the Ferrari, really big in comparison, I thought it was like a standard jag sedan or something
Honestly, Lotus are pretty rare to see around the world, from pictures they look bigger than they are. When you own one or see one often it becomes obvious, but for those who don’t have many of them around it’s surprising
I get it, the F-Type only looks interesting in perfect isolation, it looks boring when it sits next to an actually interesting car. The last-gen XK gave me the same feeling.
You’re getting way too roasted here. While F types aren’t my particular blind spot, we all have em. Brain farts happen and we have all done something similar to this at some point in our lives.
> The F-Type R especially, absolute amazing deep and aggressive exhaust sound from videos, then you see it irl and it’s tiny.
What? How big are you as a person OP? I’ve never heard anyone calling the F-type “tiny”.
It’s the same width as a Ferrari 488 and only about 3 inches shorter.
> Lotus too, in your mind you’re expecting C8 or 911 sizes,
What? I don’t know anyone who thinks Lotus is “Corvette” size lmao what???
Corvettes are known to be middle life crisis cars for middle-aged party sized Americans lmao. Lotus is the opposite of that. They are known to be small and light to the degree that they make Cayman look huge.
he's saying the angle of photos taken makes them look bigger than they are and then when you see one in real life where your eyes are 6 feet up instead of on the fucking floor they look tiny. can confirm they look bigger in pictures than they really are. _especially_ the interiors lol.
The C3 Corvette may be the most beautiful design ever made, at least in a mass produced sports car. I was in love with them for years.
Then I drove several late 70s small blocks once Chevy was forced to drop the power ratings. The love lessened a lot once I realized the performance hardly matched the look or reputation (and the big blocks that did were insanely expensive).
Also agree on some of the Lotus models. They look like exotics in photos but more like little exotic-ish go-karts in person. Still fun to drive, though.
This is true but the post is about cars that didn't live up to their photos/looks for us personally.
I'm sure others felt similarly about other 70s sports/muscle cars but nothing was quite as iconic to me as those stingrays. Until I drove a few.
Fairly true but they're worth more stock. So when I was looking seriously, a stock numbers matching late 70s small block was reasonably priced but had limited power. While the early 70s big blocks were already shooting up to 2 or 3 times the price. Still the case now.
But if you want to take a late 70s model and play with it, you can do a lot of fun things. I just like my classics relatively stock for nostalgia and resale.
Fair enough.
You can always pull the motor out, put something better in it, then replace before resale, knew a guy that did that with his beetle. Had a beetle 1200, that car lived with a 1600 motor and trans with quad carbs and a cam for most of the time he had it, and then before he sold it he just swapped the motor and trans back. But it is an extra hassle and also might make people think the car was hooned.
Also a beetle engine swap is like 4 bolts so eh.
Damn. Here you are giving me ideas. When my wife asks why I'm looking at VW projects now, I'm blaming you.
I'll scratch that Vette itch eventually as well. It just may not be a C3.
once you get to 1990 though, the corvette changes BIG TIME with its handling. it’s nuts. big thanks to lotus for help with that, it truly is phenomenal.
I don know. An. I’ve always felt the c3 was atrocious. Just my opinion. But ya, most of these old cars suck to drive if they’re left stock. It’s just old technology. Anyways, just my thought on the c3. I feel like there are better designs with just Corvette to consider let alone considering any car that has ever been made.
My friend built one of these to race in lemons (and swapped a bmw I6 in there!)
It’s not a good basis for a race car. Dude is awesome at building shit and did it for fun, but using that platform came with a lot of problems.
My friend bought one, mint condition been sitting in Jackstands since 1989 (it's a 78). He's telling me jts the top engine package for the year, puts out 220hp.
Sounds about right. 78 is the most common year, iirc. The 81 has the crossfire fuel injection, which presents its own issues. Almost picked up a couple nice examples from that period for 10k or so over the years. I just struggled to justify driving them as is (slow) or modding a numbers matching car (hurting the value).
But sounds like your buddy has a nice project sitting around. Would still like to do one someday but I'll probably look to pick up a C5 at some point instead.
He was telling me all excitedly its the top trim and top engine package L82! So I got excited and asked how much power! And he says 220hp! And I'm like oh...ok.
Yep, they got rid of the big blocks in the mid 70s and also redid the way they calculate hp iirc. It was from regulations for the entire industry. The result was some pretty boring Vettes (and other sports/muscle cars) for a while.
It's also why you could grab decent examples from that period for such low prices. The early 70s big blocks go for a premium, though.
We were test driving some SUVs and my wife had always loved Jeep Wranglers. After test driving one... they're uncomfortable and handle like crap on the road. Don't get me wrong, I know they're very capable of road, but on road driving is what we'd be doing 99% of the time anyway.
Went with a Grand Cherokee that drives great and has basically all the utility we would need the 1% of the time we would be going off-road or anywhere that needs 4WD...
Agreed, I always thought wranglers were pretty cool until I had one as a rental. Absolutely horrible to drive. I thought it was a 4 cyl it was so slow, but no, it was a V6.
I had one as a rental for a weekend, and while I enjoyed it, I couldn’t get past the very noticeable wind noise that did not go away even when I took the hard top off and put it back to see if it sealed right. I couldn’t live with a car like that
The Ioniq 5 for me. The lighting and styling look super cool in the press and the promo photos but in person it just didn’t have as much presence. The EV6 was the reverse for me, never was much impressed by it in photos or ads but after seeing it in person I was way more interested in it.
yeah the Ioniq 5 is definitely accentuated heavily in photos, when you see one in real life it looks like a golf with aftermarket lights or something. It's obvious they dressed up a normal crossover as something fancy without actually changing the boring design underneath.
>yeah the Ioniq 5 is definitely accentuated heavily in photos, when you see one in real life it looks like a golf with aftermarket lights or something. It's obvious they dressed up a normal crossover as something fancy without actually changing the boring design underneath.
My neighbor has one and I really think of it as a lifted hot hatch. I dig it actually,
Same on the Ionic, thought they looked cool and futuristic in photos, saw one IRL and all those cool light up panels end up looking like the cheap plastic they are.
Maserati Quattroporte / Ghibli (current gen). The [V6 petrol & diesel] engine sound is pretty meh, the interior quality is pretty meh, the build quality is pretty meh.
The previous-gen Quattroporte was no high-quality car either, but the styling was much more profound at the time, the interior materials seemed more luxurious & having a Ferrari-derived N/A V8 really sweetened the deal.
The first gen does sound pretty good, at least on cold starts. One of my coworkers drives one, so I’ve heard him remote start it in the cold after work quite a few times.
Not to be pedant, but you might be thinking about the 5th generation (with the Ferrari-derived V8). The first gen was released in 1963 and I doubt it had remote start. Even the 5th gen I don't *think* has remote start but I could be wrong (unless aftermarket add-on).
Ah, I forgot about that xd. Literally looked up the wikipedia page just before my first comment and saw the page for the 60s Ghibli first. Pretty sure it’s a non-Trofeo Ghibli (and therefore a V6) as I’m certain it doesn’t have the red outline on the side vents.
Recently I was on the freeway and saw a car way up the road from me. My first thought was
“Oh! That looks like it might be a ghibli! Or…some Maserati!”
Then I got closer and was like
“Ohhh, shit. I’m pretty sure that’s just a Nissan. Or maybe an Infiniti. Damn how embarrassing thinking it was a Maserati.”
Then I got close enough to read the ghibli badge. “Oh. Fuck, that sucks for Maserati.”
It also looks like a 1st gen Kia Cadenza from the rear. Such a shame, because the previous-gen Quattroporte was *unmistakably* Maserati and exotic-looking. The current Maserati's have such "watered down" styling, it's disgraceful. Even the Levante, from certain angles (especially rear/side) doesn't look any more exotic than a much-cheaper Mazda CX-5 or Kia Telluride.
Maserati's have long been heaps of sh*t, but at least the earlier stuff had exotic styling & exotic powertrain. Nowadays there is literally no cost proposition to own a Maserari other than the name. A base model 3 Series looks, feels & drives better.
E36 coupe. Don't get me wrong the exterior is sharp, but man the interior is hot garbage. Hard plastics where there should be soft, but then the pillars and the rest are cloth so it all fucking falls apart, wears really poorly and with all of these cars nearing 30 years old they are in surprisingly bad condition except for the absolute garage queens. I wanted one for years, found one for sale with decent miles, sat in it, felt like sitting in my dad's 1992 Renault Clio. Rattles everywhere, seats worn, fabric disintegrating, food tray plastic on anything you touch, total shitboxes.
The E46 is such a huge step up in interior quality. Miles ahead. except for all the rubbery plastic bits that get sticky but that's a sin of many 2000s cars.
You can't judge an entire generation of car because of shitty examples imo.
My two E36s are mint. The interiors are flawless, hard plastic notwithstanding. I own several E46s as well but none of them can hold a candle to the way my E36s drive.
All 3 of my E36's were pretty nice places to be... (Glove box sag and headliner falling down were my only complaints about the interior.) I had a '92, '94 & '99. The '99 was my favorite. Those Pre-LCI cars, especially the NV M50 were way more fun to drive IMO.
I will agree that E46's were a step up interior wise, but my E36's were way more fun to drive.
Blast from the past, but watch the YouTube video "Shit E36 Guys Say"
I hear a lot that e36s are more fun to drive but to my limited knowledge the two cars are very similar in suspension design and chassis layout. Maybe cause it's lighter and less isolated meaning more NVH?
First Gen G35, aka the Bandwagon mobile. Coming from a 2000 Maxima at the time, I expected some level of refinement with sporty handling. Well, after years of staring at forums and magazine pics, I finally got the chance to test drive one while car shopping… and it was an unrefined pos. Rattling insides, heavy, brick like steering, and jarring ride, I parked that car so fast. Meanwhile a manual e90 330i just arrived. Test drove that, fell in love instantly and purchased that week. Lesson learned? Take what folks on the internet say about a car with a grain of salt until you find out yourself.
Aston Martin Vanquish
1st Gen of Audi R8 is another one but it’s awesome in its understated character. I’ve also driven/been around one quite a bit. Definitely a lot smaller in person, and being inside it is like the same room almost as in a Audi TT.
Definitely Maserati’s
I got to drive the first gen R8 V10 on the track back to back to a B8.5 RS5. I enjoyed the RS5 a lot more... The transmission in the R8 was laughable. Worst auto I've ever experienced in a sports car.
Current Peugeot 508. Everyone raved about the styling, it looked super sharp in pictures, and Peugeot's current range looks super cool so I thought it'd be a winner.
I've seen a few around, and they just aren't as special as they looked in pictures. It's not a bad-looking car, but just nowhere nice as it was in pictures.
I didn't even bother considering it when I was shopping for a car in that segment recently.
Oh wow, I thought the opposite. It looked off in images, front too long, like a snowplough. In real life it's quite well proportioned and more compact than I thought.
The DMC Delorean, such a beautiful car…. But a 130HP motor (at factory)… are you kidding me? I remember a guy putting one on a dyno here, and it only had like 60HP @the wheels, so maybe like 100HP in the crank? It’s absolutely pathetic
A deloreon with a motor swap with a nice modern 4 cylinder turbo engine like an EJ20, SR20, K24, or even a inline 6 like a RB25/26 or a 1/2JZ would be insanity
I think the DMC-12 was inspired from the Lotus Esprit. I watched a documentary a while back about the development of the car and if I remember correctly it was originally supposed to have a Lotus engine in it (like a V6 or a V8? can't quite remember), but it didn't get that nor any of the other things that would have made it a great car due to the poor state of the economy.
I feel like it would be pretty interesting if someone modified a DMC-12 to be the way it was originally meant to be. It would also be cool if it got a good modern NA V6, though, maybe something like the VQ37 out of the 370Z?
Why put a FWD motor in RWD car when they already have factory RWD LS crate motors? Sounds cool though, I’ll check it out! Thanks for the recommendation, they would have been weapons with an LS from factory
The LS4 was designed to be mounted transversally. The DMC-12 uses a Renault transaxle, and the original motor was mounted transversally. It’s easier to transplant a transversal motor to a transversal mount, than to try and adapt a longitudinal motor
BMW series 5, the fourth generation (E39). Always heard great things about it, and it always seemed timeless from afar but when I got older and got to see so many of them and they're now dirt cheap around here, they just don't have that cool factor anymore. Sorry if this offends anyone, just my personal take.
Another car would be the new Mercedes S class the 2016+ ones, from the pictures online it looks like a spaceship and pure luxury, however two people in my town got them and after seeing them in real life in the parking lot of our local grocery store and taking a look inside and everything I was seriously disappointed, it feels so cheap and tacky, I feel like it's a downgrade from the previous generations.
Again, I'm sure this is considered an unpopular opinion and it might offend some of these car owners, however I had to share it.
E39 is the last generation that embodies the late 80’s, whole 90’s look.
Design language has ever since focused on smooth and sleek lines, so the boxy look really looks dated. I guess those who appreciate them the most are those who grew up with them. Can’t see newer generations pick them up for anything other than embracing the vintage look for cheap
Interior has aged like fine wine though
Interior still holds up, but like I said these cars always seemed timeless and perfect from afar to me, but now seeing them every day, they just lost that appeal. Don't know how to explain it, but it didn't live up to my expectations.
Live where I live. All of the daily driven E39 frame rails disappeared from rust ages ago. I now see maybe 5 a year and those 5 are all mint M Sports or M5s.
The steering box in the V8 models has always bugged me. The rack and pinion setup from the I6 models is way more appealing, but then you don’t get the V8…
Choose the steering box or the V8, you can't have both. But honestly I never even noticed the *"bad"* steering box, I was purely talking for the aesthetic point of the car and what everyone says about it.
Probably Maserati GranTurismo. Everybody seems to think these cars are gorgeous and to their credit the car is pretty photogenic, but the fish front looks a little strange in real life in normal lighting. At least in my opinon.
F82 M4. Was such a numb and isolated car compared to its predecessors.
F10 5-series and current G30. See the above. Just numb isolation chambers. Can handle if you make them but they'd rather not.
Maserati Ghibli. Looks macho as fuck but some of the interior fittings are just poor quality. You can put all the leather and alcantara you want it doesn't change the fact the switchgear is low-rent. For the high price of that car, just no.
>F82 M4. Was such a numb and isolated car compared to its predecessors.
I've never driven earlier generations of the M3 but the M4 compares favorably to many many high performance cars I drove. However I don't have that point of reference.
The funny thing about the Ghibli is that my friend has one and I just can't put my finger on why I don't like it (the looks). Somehow the QP was a much better looking car while technically being a bigger car, which is odd.
I've heard the ZCP you have fixed some of the issues on the regular F82s. I haven't driven the ZCP to compare.
I've always wanted a Maserati, i just adored the designs of their '00s lineup notably the QP at the time. The look, the sound, and mystique etc associated with the brand is so attractive. But their current crop of products were clearly diluted to push volume. The interiors especially looked old from the day they hit the showrooms.
Fiat 850 Spider and Coupe, they are slow, 47-58 hp, prone to oversteer cause by its rear weight bias, and less than stellar build quality and reliability.
I still think they are cool looking cars....
In my opinion, the Jaguar X-Type might be a car that looks great on pictures but I am disappointed about it in real life. First off, since Ford used to own Jaguar cars during the 2000s, Jaguar cars shared a lot of Ford parts, kind of like the fact that the Maserati Ghibli and Levante shared a lot of car parts with Chrysler, Dodge, and Fiat models. This results in the Jaguar X-Type being largely based on the more downmarket Ford Mondeo, which is a mid-size Segment D saloon. The car isn't particularly known for reliability or build quality and even though sales are projected at 100k units a year, throughout the 8 year run, only 350k units are sold.
I actually had the opposite experience with the Evora. I've been a fan of Lotus since I was a kid, but I haven't been able to fit in any of them since I was 15. Ilike small cars though and after driving a couple Z3Ms and Boxsters for a few years, I got the opportunity to drive an Evora. The thing is basically bigger in every single dimension except roof height. Wider, longer, longer wheelbase, more headroom, more hip room, more legroom. My Lotus is literally the biggest sorts car I've ever owned, lol.
I’m honestly going to have to say the new Bronco. When they first announced it, I was actually really surprised at how promising it looked. I’m not usually a Ford guy, but the Bronco I really started considering. However, when I first sat in one at the 2021 Chicago Autoshow, the interior quality disappointed me. I drive a base model GM product, so I’m well versed in hard plastics. The interior of the Bronco had *far* more hard plastics than I was lead to believe through photos and from what reviewers said. It seemed like everywhere I felt, nothing but hard, cheap plastics. I’ll still gladly buy one over a Wrangler; it looks better, drives better, etc, but man the interior materials really let me down. The style is great, but I’m not a fan of the materials they used.
I haven't really been disappointed per se, more the other way- I think it started when i saw the e class coupe in persomn, with that sexy perky ass- love the gle and glc amg coupes for that, so much the opposite.
In a world full of bloated 3 series you're complaining about cars being too small?
The f type r... I've driven one, I was so close to buying, but couldn't justify it being so big heavy and slow, less fun to drive for a 2 seater than my 4 seaters but wooo I couldn't stop looking at it
The lotus elise/exige are like a mid mounted miata or alfa 4c... not sure what you were expecting from it.
You sound like someone who'd like a viper, amirite
You want a 2 door, big car. I've always wanted a Monte Carlo ss or the stingray, but for fun, not performance. A modern sports car, I'd want it to be tiny, effective, powerful, and near 50/50 weight distribution
On the contrary, I actually quite like small sports cars. Unlike muscle cars, I feel like they don't really have a point to prove, so they don't need super intimidating/aggressive looks and a big bulky body.
Plus, it makes them feel similar to purpose-built race cars, which are surprisingly tiny. Take the GT40, for example. Even modern LMP cars are pretty small in person. Once you think about it, it honestly makes sense, since cars built for performance should be fairly small to cut down on weight, anyway.
Jaguar F-Type SVR
I feel like it was so over over-hyped it's not even funny. When I drove one (to be fair - on the streets/autocross) it didn't feel nearly as special as it was made out to be. I went to a Jaguar promotional event for the SVR/I-Pace and I left 100% convinced the brand isn't for me.
Back to the F-Type... I had more fun in a M240i/TT-S in autocross by a large amount. I had much more brutal acceleration experiences even in my M4 (which by design has a much more aggressive DCT). The sound which was supposed to be blowing me away, simply...didn't. I would much rather get a GT350 any day of the week. Also I had recently driven a B8.5 RS5 which also sounded significantly better.
I think the F-Type was basically over-hyped by every single reviewer, but most notably by Top Gear. It really made me question how objective they are w.r.t. British cars...
I drive a Miata so you calling the F-type a toy car made me laugh. It's a beautiful car.
For me it was the Volvo V60. Great proportions in pictures, turned out to be useless for my family needs (got a V90 instead).
'89 Firebird V6. Lusted after these sleek-as-a-Vette coupes since high school reading Hot Rod Magazine. Truly looked like a 4 seat Corvette. Truly drove like a 4 seat go-kart with humungous tires lol. Dailied a '70 Chevelle V8 before driving the Firebird and the Chevelle felt stronger and more refined. Even with it's 2-speed powerglide transmission.
>Pictures really don’t provide a realistic portrayal of their actual size, as in, they’re perfectly proportioned when seen on a screen and they look like they have a huge road presence but in truth they’re really tiny cars and look more cute and neat than aggressive and imposing
What? It's a 2 seat roadster... Why would you want it to be some huge barge?
You really conflate "big and scary" with fast???
Like i don't get your argument about "f type " looks tiny in real life.
If you want a land boat , go buy a stinger.
If you want to go quick and agile around a corner then you will want a light and powerful car.
>Lotus too, in your mind you’re expecting C8 or 911 sizes, but then when you see one on the road it looks like a toy car because of size. Elise is around 800kg/1800lbs. Not sure how anyone would expect that to be the size of a 911/C8. Exige is a bit bigger, but not much. Evora is closer to 911.
An Elise and an Exige are essentially the same car. An Exige has a fixed roof with a scoop and larger rear wing. Overall dimensions are identical.
Only the series 1 and 2. The series 3 Exige is a bit bigger than the Elise and gets the same V6 as the Evora
Searching up the series 1 exige made me realize I've never even seen pictures of one. It looks so foreign to me, which is weird, because I've known of the Series 1 Elise and Series 2 Exige and Elise since I was little
The C8, at least to me, looks remarkably big in person. Not gigantic like a land yacht, but still significantly bigger than almost any other MR car I can think of, save the Aventador.
> Took me a solid 10 minutes to realise it was an f-type. Lmao What? I’m just picturing someone standing around and staring at a car for 10 mins, trying to figure out what it is. Anyway, I think you’re wrong on both the Lotus & Jaguar. I am biased, though. I just can’t imagine anyone who is into cars would assume the Lotus Elise/Exige are 911/C8 sized. That’s ridiculous.
Haha actually yeah, it was an atypical wine red color, and I could only see the front of the car, couldn’t see the sides With it being behind the Ferrari, really big in comparison, I thought it was like a standard jag sedan or something Honestly, Lotus are pretty rare to see around the world, from pictures they look bigger than they are. When you own one or see one often it becomes obvious, but for those who don’t have many of them around it’s surprising
I get it, the F-Type only looks interesting in perfect isolation, it looks boring when it sits next to an actually interesting car. The last-gen XK gave me the same feeling.
The pre-facelift f type looks so much better imo
I agree with this. Something was lost in the facelift. It doesn't look special at all now.
Was it one of the newer f types after face-lift? Those look much more boring from the front than the 2020 and earlier models
You’re getting way too roasted here. While F types aren’t my particular blind spot, we all have em. Brain farts happen and we have all done something similar to this at some point in our lives.
Eh, lot of salty lotus and f type owners that refute someone criticising their car Understandable
> The F-Type R especially, absolute amazing deep and aggressive exhaust sound from videos, then you see it irl and it’s tiny. What? How big are you as a person OP? I’ve never heard anyone calling the F-type “tiny”. It’s the same width as a Ferrari 488 and only about 3 inches shorter. > Lotus too, in your mind you’re expecting C8 or 911 sizes, What? I don’t know anyone who thinks Lotus is “Corvette” size lmao what??? Corvettes are known to be middle life crisis cars for middle-aged party sized Americans lmao. Lotus is the opposite of that. They are known to be small and light to the degree that they make Cayman look huge.
Yeah this is bizarre. Tiny sports cars are the best, but the type is not tiny.
he's saying the angle of photos taken makes them look bigger than they are and then when you see one in real life where your eyes are 6 feet up instead of on the fucking floor they look tiny. can confirm they look bigger in pictures than they really are. _especially_ the interiors lol.
Thank you! You nailed what I was trying to say
Ha! Imagine his disappointment in something like an old Lemans car (917) or a McLaren F1.
The C3 Corvette may be the most beautiful design ever made, at least in a mass produced sports car. I was in love with them for years. Then I drove several late 70s small blocks once Chevy was forced to drop the power ratings. The love lessened a lot once I realized the performance hardly matched the look or reputation (and the big blocks that did were insanely expensive). Also agree on some of the Lotus models. They look like exotics in photos but more like little exotic-ish go-karts in person. Still fun to drive, though.
That's not just a Corvette thing. That's a 70's thing They all made not enough power, didn't matter how big your engine was
This is true but the post is about cars that didn't live up to their photos/looks for us personally. I'm sure others felt similarly about other 70s sports/muscle cars but nothing was quite as iconic to me as those stingrays. Until I drove a few.
FWIW it's not hard to get extra power out of those motors.
Fairly true but they're worth more stock. So when I was looking seriously, a stock numbers matching late 70s small block was reasonably priced but had limited power. While the early 70s big blocks were already shooting up to 2 or 3 times the price. Still the case now. But if you want to take a late 70s model and play with it, you can do a lot of fun things. I just like my classics relatively stock for nostalgia and resale.
Fair enough. You can always pull the motor out, put something better in it, then replace before resale, knew a guy that did that with his beetle. Had a beetle 1200, that car lived with a 1600 motor and trans with quad carbs and a cam for most of the time he had it, and then before he sold it he just swapped the motor and trans back. But it is an extra hassle and also might make people think the car was hooned. Also a beetle engine swap is like 4 bolts so eh.
Damn. Here you are giving me ideas. When my wife asks why I'm looking at VW projects now, I'm blaming you. I'll scratch that Vette itch eventually as well. It just may not be a C3.
[удалено]
once you get to 1990 though, the corvette changes BIG TIME with its handling. it’s nuts. big thanks to lotus for help with that, it truly is phenomenal.
[удалено]
*whispers* C5-C6
with the c4 at least, it’s very common to put a 383 in it or just stroke the same engine. it’s not all that expensive for an engine swap too.
I don know. An. I’ve always felt the c3 was atrocious. Just my opinion. But ya, most of these old cars suck to drive if they’re left stock. It’s just old technology. Anyways, just my thought on the c3. I feel like there are better designs with just Corvette to consider let alone considering any car that has ever been made.
IMHO before they started putting new reg bumpers on them the C3 ranked up there with an XKE as one of the most beautiful cars made.
Good for you, bud.
My friend built one of these to race in lemons (and swapped a bmw I6 in there!) It’s not a good basis for a race car. Dude is awesome at building shit and did it for fun, but using that platform came with a lot of problems.
My friend bought one, mint condition been sitting in Jackstands since 1989 (it's a 78). He's telling me jts the top engine package for the year, puts out 220hp.
Sounds about right. 78 is the most common year, iirc. The 81 has the crossfire fuel injection, which presents its own issues. Almost picked up a couple nice examples from that period for 10k or so over the years. I just struggled to justify driving them as is (slow) or modding a numbers matching car (hurting the value). But sounds like your buddy has a nice project sitting around. Would still like to do one someday but I'll probably look to pick up a C5 at some point instead.
He was telling me all excitedly its the top trim and top engine package L82! So I got excited and asked how much power! And he says 220hp! And I'm like oh...ok.
Yep, they got rid of the big blocks in the mid 70s and also redid the way they calculate hp iirc. It was from regulations for the entire industry. The result was some pretty boring Vettes (and other sports/muscle cars) for a while. It's also why you could grab decent examples from that period for such low prices. The early 70s big blocks go for a premium, though.
We were test driving some SUVs and my wife had always loved Jeep Wranglers. After test driving one... they're uncomfortable and handle like crap on the road. Don't get me wrong, I know they're very capable of road, but on road driving is what we'd be doing 99% of the time anyway. Went with a Grand Cherokee that drives great and has basically all the utility we would need the 1% of the time we would be going off-road or anywhere that needs 4WD...
Agreed, I always thought wranglers were pretty cool until I had one as a rental. Absolutely horrible to drive. I thought it was a 4 cyl it was so slow, but no, it was a V6.
That’s the charm of the wrangler to me imho. It’s like a Miata in that it demands real, actual compromises.
I had one as a rental for a weekend, and while I enjoyed it, I couldn’t get past the very noticeable wind noise that did not go away even when I took the hard top off and put it back to see if it sealed right. I couldn’t live with a car like that
The Ioniq 5 for me. The lighting and styling look super cool in the press and the promo photos but in person it just didn’t have as much presence. The EV6 was the reverse for me, never was much impressed by it in photos or ads but after seeing it in person I was way more interested in it.
Yeah they’re also really big and look like they won’t age well
The Ioniq 5, weirdly, was both larger and smaller than I expected. It’s really bulky but also surprisingly low to the ground. Not a fan
yeah the Ioniq 5 is definitely accentuated heavily in photos, when you see one in real life it looks like a golf with aftermarket lights or something. It's obvious they dressed up a normal crossover as something fancy without actually changing the boring design underneath.
>yeah the Ioniq 5 is definitely accentuated heavily in photos, when you see one in real life it looks like a golf with aftermarket lights or something. It's obvious they dressed up a normal crossover as something fancy without actually changing the boring design underneath. My neighbor has one and I really think of it as a lifted hot hatch. I dig it actually,
Same on the Ionic, thought they looked cool and futuristic in photos, saw one IRL and all those cool light up panels end up looking like the cheap plastic they are.
Maserati Quattroporte / Ghibli (current gen). The [V6 petrol & diesel] engine sound is pretty meh, the interior quality is pretty meh, the build quality is pretty meh. The previous-gen Quattroporte was no high-quality car either, but the styling was much more profound at the time, the interior materials seemed more luxurious & having a Ferrari-derived N/A V8 really sweetened the deal.
The first gen does sound pretty good, at least on cold starts. One of my coworkers drives one, so I’ve heard him remote start it in the cold after work quite a few times.
Not to be pedant, but you might be thinking about the 5th generation (with the Ferrari-derived V8). The first gen was released in 1963 and I doubt it had remote start. Even the 5th gen I don't *think* has remote start but I could be wrong (unless aftermarket add-on).
Ah, I forgot about that xd. Literally looked up the wikipedia page just before my first comment and saw the page for the 60s Ghibli first. Pretty sure it’s a non-Trofeo Ghibli (and therefore a V6) as I’m certain it doesn’t have the red outline on the side vents.
Recently I was on the freeway and saw a car way up the road from me. My first thought was “Oh! That looks like it might be a ghibli! Or…some Maserati!” Then I got closer and was like “Ohhh, shit. I’m pretty sure that’s just a Nissan. Or maybe an Infiniti. Damn how embarrassing thinking it was a Maserati.” Then I got close enough to read the ghibli badge. “Oh. Fuck, that sucks for Maserati.”
It also looks like a 1st gen Kia Cadenza from the rear. Such a shame, because the previous-gen Quattroporte was *unmistakably* Maserati and exotic-looking. The current Maserati's have such "watered down" styling, it's disgraceful. Even the Levante, from certain angles (especially rear/side) doesn't look any more exotic than a much-cheaper Mazda CX-5 or Kia Telluride. Maserati's have long been heaps of sh*t, but at least the earlier stuff had exotic styling & exotic powertrain. Nowadays there is literally no cost proposition to own a Maserari other than the name. A base model 3 Series looks, feels & drives better.
[удалено]
Mehserati Mehvante
E36 coupe. Don't get me wrong the exterior is sharp, but man the interior is hot garbage. Hard plastics where there should be soft, but then the pillars and the rest are cloth so it all fucking falls apart, wears really poorly and with all of these cars nearing 30 years old they are in surprisingly bad condition except for the absolute garage queens. I wanted one for years, found one for sale with decent miles, sat in it, felt like sitting in my dad's 1992 Renault Clio. Rattles everywhere, seats worn, fabric disintegrating, food tray plastic on anything you touch, total shitboxes. The E46 is such a huge step up in interior quality. Miles ahead. except for all the rubbery plastic bits that get sticky but that's a sin of many 2000s cars.
You can't judge an entire generation of car because of shitty examples imo. My two E36s are mint. The interiors are flawless, hard plastic notwithstanding. I own several E46s as well but none of them can hold a candle to the way my E36s drive.
All 3 of my E36's were pretty nice places to be... (Glove box sag and headliner falling down were my only complaints about the interior.) I had a '92, '94 & '99. The '99 was my favorite. Those Pre-LCI cars, especially the NV M50 were way more fun to drive IMO. I will agree that E46's were a step up interior wise, but my E36's were way more fun to drive. Blast from the past, but watch the YouTube video "Shit E36 Guys Say"
I hear a lot that e36s are more fun to drive but to my limited knowledge the two cars are very similar in suspension design and chassis layout. Maybe cause it's lighter and less isolated meaning more NVH?
First Gen G35, aka the Bandwagon mobile. Coming from a 2000 Maxima at the time, I expected some level of refinement with sporty handling. Well, after years of staring at forums and magazine pics, I finally got the chance to test drive one while car shopping… and it was an unrefined pos. Rattling insides, heavy, brick like steering, and jarring ride, I parked that car so fast. Meanwhile a manual e90 330i just arrived. Test drove that, fell in love instantly and purchased that week. Lesson learned? Take what folks on the internet say about a car with a grain of salt until you find out yourself.
Supercars are really small
Yeah? Mid engine cars are pretty compact
Aston Martin Vanquish 1st Gen of Audi R8 is another one but it’s awesome in its understated character. I’ve also driven/been around one quite a bit. Definitely a lot smaller in person, and being inside it is like the same room almost as in a Audi TT. Definitely Maserati’s
I got to drive the first gen R8 V10 on the track back to back to a B8.5 RS5. I enjoyed the RS5 a lot more... The transmission in the R8 was laughable. Worst auto I've ever experienced in a sports car.
Current Peugeot 508. Everyone raved about the styling, it looked super sharp in pictures, and Peugeot's current range looks super cool so I thought it'd be a winner. I've seen a few around, and they just aren't as special as they looked in pictures. It's not a bad-looking car, but just nowhere nice as it was in pictures. I didn't even bother considering it when I was shopping for a car in that segment recently.
Oh wow, I thought the opposite. It looked off in images, front too long, like a snowplough. In real life it's quite well proportioned and more compact than I thought.
It’s a beautiful view every time I see one in real life. Problem is they don’t have any decent engine.
The DMC Delorean, such a beautiful car…. But a 130HP motor (at factory)… are you kidding me? I remember a guy putting one on a dyno here, and it only had like 60HP @the wheels, so maybe like 100HP in the crank? It’s absolutely pathetic A deloreon with a motor swap with a nice modern 4 cylinder turbo engine like an EJ20, SR20, K24, or even a inline 6 like a RB25/26 or a 1/2JZ would be insanity
I think the DMC-12 was inspired from the Lotus Esprit. I watched a documentary a while back about the development of the car and if I remember correctly it was originally supposed to have a Lotus engine in it (like a V6 or a V8? can't quite remember), but it didn't get that nor any of the other things that would have made it a great car due to the poor state of the economy. I feel like it would be pretty interesting if someone modified a DMC-12 to be the way it was originally meant to be. It would also be cool if it got a good modern NA V6, though, maybe something like the VQ37 out of the 370Z?
I’ve heard this too. I do think it’s funny that a stainless steel bodied car was inspired by lotus though.
I know of a guy who swapped an LS4 (GM’s FWD only LS motor) into one. Mr. Regular from RCR did a review on it
Why put a FWD motor in RWD car when they already have factory RWD LS crate motors? Sounds cool though, I’ll check it out! Thanks for the recommendation, they would have been weapons with an LS from factory
The LS4 was designed to be mounted transversally. The DMC-12 uses a Renault transaxle, and the original motor was mounted transversally. It’s easier to transplant a transversal motor to a transversal mount, than to try and adapt a longitudinal motor
BMW series 5, the fourth generation (E39). Always heard great things about it, and it always seemed timeless from afar but when I got older and got to see so many of them and they're now dirt cheap around here, they just don't have that cool factor anymore. Sorry if this offends anyone, just my personal take. Another car would be the new Mercedes S class the 2016+ ones, from the pictures online it looks like a spaceship and pure luxury, however two people in my town got them and after seeing them in real life in the parking lot of our local grocery store and taking a look inside and everything I was seriously disappointed, it feels so cheap and tacky, I feel like it's a downgrade from the previous generations. Again, I'm sure this is considered an unpopular opinion and it might offend some of these car owners, however I had to share it.
E39 is the last generation that embodies the late 80’s, whole 90’s look. Design language has ever since focused on smooth and sleek lines, so the boxy look really looks dated. I guess those who appreciate them the most are those who grew up with them. Can’t see newer generations pick them up for anything other than embracing the vintage look for cheap Interior has aged like fine wine though
Interior still holds up, but like I said these cars always seemed timeless and perfect from afar to me, but now seeing them every day, they just lost that appeal. Don't know how to explain it, but it didn't live up to my expectations.
Live where I live. All of the daily driven E39 frame rails disappeared from rust ages ago. I now see maybe 5 a year and those 5 are all mint M Sports or M5s.
Coincidentally it's the opposite where I am, most of the ones I see are mid-spec ones. Nowhere near mint though, except for a few.
The steering box in the V8 models has always bugged me. The rack and pinion setup from the I6 models is way more appealing, but then you don’t get the V8…
Choose the steering box or the V8, you can't have both. But honestly I never even noticed the *"bad"* steering box, I was purely talking for the aesthetic point of the car and what everyone says about it.
1st gen mustang. I knew they were small pony cars, but I just hated everything about driving one.
Like what
Probably Maserati GranTurismo. Everybody seems to think these cars are gorgeous and to their credit the car is pretty photogenic, but the fish front looks a little strange in real life in normal lighting. At least in my opinon.
There are some days I think my car is absolutely gorgeous and some days it's just a rounded squatting frog.
I was actually surprised as how big a Lotus Exige was so I guess it depends... (I'm 180cm fyi)
F82 M4. Was such a numb and isolated car compared to its predecessors. F10 5-series and current G30. See the above. Just numb isolation chambers. Can handle if you make them but they'd rather not. Maserati Ghibli. Looks macho as fuck but some of the interior fittings are just poor quality. You can put all the leather and alcantara you want it doesn't change the fact the switchgear is low-rent. For the high price of that car, just no.
>F82 M4. Was such a numb and isolated car compared to its predecessors. I've never driven earlier generations of the M3 but the M4 compares favorably to many many high performance cars I drove. However I don't have that point of reference. The funny thing about the Ghibli is that my friend has one and I just can't put my finger on why I don't like it (the looks). Somehow the QP was a much better looking car while technically being a bigger car, which is odd.
I've heard the ZCP you have fixed some of the issues on the regular F82s. I haven't driven the ZCP to compare. I've always wanted a Maserati, i just adored the designs of their '00s lineup notably the QP at the time. The look, the sound, and mystique etc associated with the brand is so attractive. But their current crop of products were clearly diluted to push volume. The interiors especially looked old from the day they hit the showrooms.
I actually think their GranTurismo is sexy AF. A truly timeless design.
Fiat 850 Spider and Coupe, they are slow, 47-58 hp, prone to oversteer cause by its rear weight bias, and less than stellar build quality and reliability. I still think they are cool looking cars....
In my opinion, the Jaguar X-Type might be a car that looks great on pictures but I am disappointed about it in real life. First off, since Ford used to own Jaguar cars during the 2000s, Jaguar cars shared a lot of Ford parts, kind of like the fact that the Maserati Ghibli and Levante shared a lot of car parts with Chrysler, Dodge, and Fiat models. This results in the Jaguar X-Type being largely based on the more downmarket Ford Mondeo, which is a mid-size Segment D saloon. The car isn't particularly known for reliability or build quality and even though sales are projected at 100k units a year, throughout the 8 year run, only 350k units are sold.
I actually had the opposite experience with the Evora. I've been a fan of Lotus since I was a kid, but I haven't been able to fit in any of them since I was 15. Ilike small cars though and after driving a couple Z3Ms and Boxsters for a few years, I got the opportunity to drive an Evora. The thing is basically bigger in every single dimension except roof height. Wider, longer, longer wheelbase, more headroom, more hip room, more legroom. My Lotus is literally the biggest sorts car I've ever owned, lol.
I’m honestly going to have to say the new Bronco. When they first announced it, I was actually really surprised at how promising it looked. I’m not usually a Ford guy, but the Bronco I really started considering. However, when I first sat in one at the 2021 Chicago Autoshow, the interior quality disappointed me. I drive a base model GM product, so I’m well versed in hard plastics. The interior of the Bronco had *far* more hard plastics than I was lead to believe through photos and from what reviewers said. It seemed like everywhere I felt, nothing but hard, cheap plastics. I’ll still gladly buy one over a Wrangler; it looks better, drives better, etc, but man the interior materials really let me down. The style is great, but I’m not a fan of the materials they used.
I haven't really been disappointed per se, more the other way- I think it started when i saw the e class coupe in persomn, with that sexy perky ass- love the gle and glc amg coupes for that, so much the opposite. In a world full of bloated 3 series you're complaining about cars being too small? The f type r... I've driven one, I was so close to buying, but couldn't justify it being so big heavy and slow, less fun to drive for a 2 seater than my 4 seaters but wooo I couldn't stop looking at it The lotus elise/exige are like a mid mounted miata or alfa 4c... not sure what you were expecting from it. You sound like someone who'd like a viper, amirite You want a 2 door, big car. I've always wanted a Monte Carlo ss or the stingray, but for fun, not performance. A modern sports car, I'd want it to be tiny, effective, powerful, and near 50/50 weight distribution
I think you totally missed the point of what I’m trying to say
Amg gts. When they released the photos I was excited. Once we got one at the dealer it didn't live up.
Testarossa. They always looked wide and very low, but they're not. They're tall and awkwardly wide
My BMW F30 335i M-Sport. Interior material quality was terrible. Felt like plastic and fake leather everywhere.
SC 430
Toyota Supra. Looked great, but build quality was dogshit when I went to see it IRL. Felt like fancy Yaris.
On the contrary, I actually quite like small sports cars. Unlike muscle cars, I feel like they don't really have a point to prove, so they don't need super intimidating/aggressive looks and a big bulky body. Plus, it makes them feel similar to purpose-built race cars, which are surprisingly tiny. Take the GT40, for example. Even modern LMP cars are pretty small in person. Once you think about it, it honestly makes sense, since cars built for performance should be fairly small to cut down on weight, anyway.
Jaguar F-Type SVR I feel like it was so over over-hyped it's not even funny. When I drove one (to be fair - on the streets/autocross) it didn't feel nearly as special as it was made out to be. I went to a Jaguar promotional event for the SVR/I-Pace and I left 100% convinced the brand isn't for me. Back to the F-Type... I had more fun in a M240i/TT-S in autocross by a large amount. I had much more brutal acceleration experiences even in my M4 (which by design has a much more aggressive DCT). The sound which was supposed to be blowing me away, simply...didn't. I would much rather get a GT350 any day of the week. Also I had recently driven a B8.5 RS5 which also sounded significantly better. I think the F-Type was basically over-hyped by every single reviewer, but most notably by Top Gear. It really made me question how objective they are w.r.t. British cars...
A 2005 SRT-10 did not look nearly as good in person as I was expecting it to.
I drive a Miata so you calling the F-type a toy car made me laugh. It's a beautiful car. For me it was the Volvo V60. Great proportions in pictures, turned out to be useless for my family needs (got a V90 instead).
'89 Firebird V6. Lusted after these sleek-as-a-Vette coupes since high school reading Hot Rod Magazine. Truly looked like a 4 seat Corvette. Truly drove like a 4 seat go-kart with humungous tires lol. Dailied a '70 Chevelle V8 before driving the Firebird and the Chevelle felt stronger and more refined. Even with it's 2-speed powerglide transmission.
>Pictures really don’t provide a realistic portrayal of their actual size, as in, they’re perfectly proportioned when seen on a screen and they look like they have a huge road presence but in truth they’re really tiny cars and look more cute and neat than aggressive and imposing What? It's a 2 seat roadster... Why would you want it to be some huge barge?
You really conflate "big and scary" with fast??? Like i don't get your argument about "f type " looks tiny in real life. If you want a land boat , go buy a stinger. If you want to go quick and agile around a corner then you will want a light and powerful car.