Quote:
Originally Posted by MauriSSio
if a ferrari f430 had a 160hp 4cylinder and sold 20,000 units a year, you would then consider it "ugly"? im talking about the LOOK.
|
Just because a car is "exotic" does not necessarily mean it is good looking, it just means it is exotic. There are a lot of reasons the above car you suggest could never work.
If someone sold a 160hp 4-cyl economy car with an F430 looking body on it, no one would buy it. The appeal of an exotic is generally not the look of the body, but the function of the car, and everything underneath the body. Put a Ferrari body over a Chevy Cruze, and it is still a Chevy Cruze. It will perform and drive like a Cruze, everyone will know it is a Cruze, everyone will know it is fake, and no one will be interested, given the practicality you lose for no gain in function in other areas.
And "exotic" bodies are usually engineered for function first, with visual appeal secondary. The body on a Ferrari usually looks the way it does for the purposes of creating down force, and brake and engine cooling, etc... That's why a lot of supercars aren't all that visually appealing, to be quite honest. A better description would be "appealing upon sight" because anyone who knows about cars instantly knows what they are looking at when they see a Ferrari or Lambo or anything else along those lines. Be honest, when you see a Ferrari, is your first thought "wow, what wonderful styling," or "wow, a Ferrari!?"
And the conversation brought up fuel economy earlier as well. The exotic bodies designed more for downforce tend to have high coefficients of drag, which is partly why an F430 burns way more fuel than a Camaro SS does, despite having similar or less power and a much smaller displacement engine. If a car is going to be reasonably priced, it has to sell in large numbers, but if a car is to sell in large numbers, it much be fuel efficient too, which means a shell sculpted for low coefficient of drag, which is not something "exotics" do.