That’s obviously an exaggeration, but why don’t manufacturers of basic cars just put a fancy-looking exterior onto them? Aren’t you mainly paying for the engine and electrics and upholstery and sound system with fancy cars? Why is it (seemingly) only Lamborghini and Ferrari that look like Lamborghini and Ferrari? Is chassis manufacturing more difficult than it seems to a numbnut like me? I assume it’s just pressing sheets of metal into a mould, so I’m probably way off the mark.

It’s like when you see a computer mouse that’s named something like GamerStealth eXtreme Zero Pro, and it’s the worst piece of shit you’ve ever used but looks like it came from Area 51. Same for PC cases, actually. Alienware rigs look a million percent better than they actually are. Why is this not also the case for cars?

Full disclosure: I know nothing about cars. I just know that when I see a fancy car, and check the make, it’s BMW or something high end, and when I see a pygmy hippo lookin’ motherfucker, it’s made by one of those “buy one, get one free” type manufacturers that appeal to meth head soccer moms. And by “fancy” I don’t even mean “luxury”, just obviously high quality. Most BMWs and Rolls-Royce don’t look like spaceships, but they nevertheless look really impressive. Again, I need to stress that I know nothing about cars.

Cheers!

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I would argue that it is already the case that cheap cars look and perform excellently, compared with cars produced fifty years ago. They are more reliable, economical, comfortable, higher performance, superior in virtually every respect.

    The other factor to consider is the use case. Something like a Ferrari is not reliable compared to a VW Golf, it sucks at carrying passengers and cargo, terrible fuel economy, it is horrible value for money and inferior in most ways apart from one - compensating for a small penis. That is its chief purpose and it is supremely well crafted for this use case.

    Source: automotive engineer of 25 years.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Lots and lots of reasons.

    I’m basing this on your comparison of normal cars to currently existing exotics.

    Predominantly: The vast majority of people don’t want an exotic car. They want to go from home to work and the store, maybe a drive for a leisure trip. They’re boring. They want to get their stuff and people in and out of the car easily and conveniently.

    Exotics do not do convenience well. There’s minimal trunk space, there’s space for only two people, often “snugly.” They require some contortions to get into and out of. Think of how out of shape many people are and see if they fit into a highly contoured, reclined, and snug race seat and can crawl in behind a scissor- or butterfly-style door with a very low roof.

    Engineering-wise exotics are expensive, both for the manufacturer and customer. Those compact, low, aerodynamic bodies on exotic cars take a lot of work to pack all the mechanicals in along with having to design a body that is crash-worthy for each new style. On top of that, they’re often mid-engine, which means a lot of specialty parts like transaxles, and wildly different handling characteristics than the average consumer is used to when you shift weight to the back of the vehicle.

    Manufacturers stick with the “boring” designs because they’re based on existing engineering that is safe, requires minimal cost to make the new iteration, aerodynamic, fuel efficient, and has proven to be sellable to consumers. Profit is king. They’re not going to take chances on crazy styles that may not sell because again, people are boring.

    I know people are going to chime in about mundane cars in production today that have some of the features I mentioned and treat them as an exception that invalidates the opinions I’ve offered, but the point is that if they were economical and profitable designs in an exotic body they would be more widespread. “You could just take “x” engine and transmission and build a “y” around it” argument.

    I would suggest maintenance is a potential cost problem, too…some exotics literally require the car be split - the entire rear of the car containing the engine and transaxle removed from the rest of the car for access because of the compact engineering and inaccessibility to some wear parts. However if Toyota made a low-buck supercar looking commuter car I’d hope the maintenance would be cheaper and easier.

    So there you have it. Cost of design, engineering, and maintenance. Boring consumers, convenience, and safety. Affordability and profit. That’s why we don’t have exotics everywhere. The market has determined that the few Halo cars we see like the Supra or C8 Corvette, or even the Mustang, is all the market will bear.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m the opposite: I find it increasingly harder to distinguish car makers just from looking at the car (without seeing the logo of course). They all look snazzy.

    I just know that when I see a fancy car, and check the make, it’s BMW or something high end, and when I see a pygmy hippo lookin’ motherfucker, it’s made by one of those “buy one, get one free” type manufacturers that appeal to meth head soccer moms.

    First of all, car manufacturers invest A LOT of resources into evoking that specific reaction in (potential) customers.

    And I don’t like your attitude towards people who have less money than you.

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Look at the 1950 American cars. They’re wild.

    One reason for the perception that cars look fancy or not is that you become accustomed to a design when you see it all the time.

    Supercars are wildly impractical, and slapping that body on a Corolla chassis would make a Corolla that only seats 2 and has no space for bags, but somehow takes up a lot more space than a Corolla. Also, downforce is bad for fuel efficiency.

    Your note at the bottom is interesting. The perceived luxury of a car is not related to the quality of the vehicle. As a car guy with a penchant for German cars, I do have to admit that while they’re wonderful in many ways, a beige Corolla or Civic will stand far more abuse.

  • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They have “kit cars,” which are all the parts you need to build a fancy vehicle on the chassis and drive train of a normal car. When I was young, Ford Pintos were common chassis for kit cars.

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you make a Toyota fancy, you end up with a Lexus. If you make a Honda fancy, you end up with an Acura. If you make a Volkswagen fancy, you end up with an Audi. If you make a Nissan fancy, you end up with an infinity.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If you make a Volkswagen fancy, you end up with an Audi

      Or a Porsche. Or a Bentley. Or a laborghini. Or a Bugatti.

        • Beacon@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ridiculously pretentious comment, and at least half of it isn’t even meaningfully true.

          • rabber@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Elaborate?

            I linked hoffmeister kink because it’s a perfect example how just one single line can make the car look entirely different

            Check out my nearly 20 year old e92. You don’t need an art degree to see that the body lines of this car are literally genius and that’s why it still looks like a new car

            • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Taste is subjective. I’m not a fan of how they rounded these out in this generation. I like them more when dressed up with sporty bits to add hard angles into this bloated design. But at least it’s not a Bengal 7? Still has his touch. Peak design was E39 for me. So much so, I own it’s American copycat that’s twice as reliable as an M5. But I’ll stick with the other person’s opinion: needlessly pretentious. You can describe all the lines that make it beautiful to you without being bringing such condescending tone about art degrees or classic BMW snobbery about a single car design being literally genius. You think it’s beautiful because you own it. It’s not the BMW I’d pick. But sure, yours looks better to me than whatever melted wax model they delivered in the latest design era.

              • rabber@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Of course taste is subjective. I’m not saying my cheap E92 is the best looking car ever either. E92 is literally what got me into cars when I first saw a 335i back in 2007. In space grey with red seats I literally thought it looked like a spaceship.

                E39 M5 is easily one of the best looking cars of all time. I wanted an E39 540i for ages but they are a nightmare to maintain at this age with all the brittle plastic.

                What is the m5 clone you own? I can’t really think of any V8 4 door sedans from that era. When I think american m5 clone, pontiac g8 and chevy SS come to mind

                It’s not pretentious at all to say that cars are a work of art lol. That’s why so many look bad