Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
Look... you ever see those articles showing movie stars without makeup in regular lighting? Well this is the same deal. The lighting and lens and a whole bunch of other things affect the way a photograph looks. Clever lighting and angles can make anything look good.
If you were to compare the "Hollywood" photos of the ZL1 engine from this article:
http://www.motorward.com/2011/12/she...ich-is-better/
Anyone would say that the ZL1 engine looked better... because the photo MAKES it look better.
The same thing applies to the Mustang guys and their little forum war. They have a really crappy picture of the ZL1 prototype and comparing it to marketing photos of the GT500. |
But the whole point they are arguing is that the GT500's engine is a work of art that doesn't need plastic to "ATTEMPT" to make it look nice.
I'll agree that using marketing photos is, truthfully enough, a ploy to make thinks look better than they do most of the time but the difference is after you take away the photoshop and camera tricks the ZL1's engine bay is still full of plastic and an overall cluttered mess. Does that mean the car is any less impressive? No but it doesn't change the facts, even the Boss has a nicer eloping engine compartment than the ZL1 but is that really a relevant comparison to performance or for that matter exterior looks.
I like the way the GT500's engine bay looks, not so much the ZL1's but does that mean I wouldn't buy a ZL1? Absolutely not, I judge a car by its merits, what an engine does not how it's compartment looks.