why arent there beautiful exotic LOOKING cars in the 20k range??

[hightower]

Originally Posted by Zabo

[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4WC7TWn0_oM/Sj-OyoGQmBI/AAAAAAAAAMk/TaIyh4lX2qU/s320/1990+Fiero+GT+prototype+design.jpg[IMG]

1990 Fiero GT prototype. Mid Engined, two seater commuter car. GM killed the car in 1989 because of 'Bad PR and fires' but in reality.. it cut into the Corvette's bottom line. MSRP: about the price of a Chrysler Lebaron.

There you have it.

Also for comparison: 1988 Fiero GT:

[IMG]http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww44/auctionsandbeyond/1988%20Burgundy%20Fiero%20GT/100_6676.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww44/auctionsandbeyond/1988%20Burgundy%20Fiero%20GT/100_6687.jpg[IMG]

Didn't even think of this but what an excellent point!



Like I mentioned, it's all about marketing.

[PoorMansCamaro]

genesis coupe is probably as "exotic" as you will find for under 30k.

[PoorMansCamaro]

oh, and you could always get a kit car.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

oh, and you could always get a kit car.

Which reminds me ... I wonder how many Fierro's & MR2's are running around pretending to be Italian super cars.

[nester7929]

If you could buy an exotic looking car for 20 grand, it wouldn't be exotic anymore because there would be 10 million of them on the road.

Scarcity plays a large role in what is considered to be "exotic."

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by nester7929

If you could buy an exotic looking car for 20 grand, it wouldn't be exotic anymore because there would be 10 million of them on the road.

Scarcity plays a large role in what is considered to be "exotic."

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.

[toesuf94]

Here is a "cheap" exotic. Ugh.

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by toesuf94

Here is a "cheap" exotic. Ugh.

LOL, nah.

[cab2g]

Originally Posted by toesuf94

Here is a "cheap" exotic. Ugh.

I'm all for fleet averages, if you build average cars, but the reason this car was built was to comply with European fleet average MPG laws... And this car is a complete slap in the face to anybody who had a "real" Ashton Martin... That car will go down in history as being one of the biggest flops in history. Mark my words.

[toesuf94]

And aren't the new Toyota and Subie rwd coupes supposed to fill this niche?

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by toesuf94

And aren't the new Toyota and Subie rwd coupes supposed to fill this niche?

yes. Im just wondering why a nicer exotic looking design hasnt been done in that price range/niche.

[rez333]

Here's your answer (and I'm just summarizing what others have already written):

The average car buyer in general doesn't want an exotic looking car period. Every attempt to make an inexpensive exotic-looking car has failed (eg. Fiero). That's the bottom line. You're probably wondering why have they been sales failures, here's why:

1) Few people want to show off. Do you walk around in black tie? Most people don't. Most people don't want to go around drawing attention to themselves on a daily basis. The kind of people who like to show off in attention-getting conspicuous super cars is a minority. This is a fact. Almost everyone I know in the middle-class may like the idea of owning an exotic, but would never actually ever own one; most people don't like being conspicuous.

Look at Mercedes Benz - the more expensive models actually have smaller logos, it's the cheaper ones that have the big honking logo on the grille. In other words, most richer people also do NOT like conspicuous consumption. They may like to display their status, but not in an obnoxious conspicuous manner, rather a manner that only people in the same social class are likely to recognize (because for example, only they are familiar with the nuances of higher models).

2) Few people like to fake. Forums like these tend to attract fakers (eg. V6 owners who dress their cars to look like the SS), but the majority of people feel stupid owning a car that looks fast but isn't. That's why cars like the Solstice and Prowler were failures - they looked the part, but didn't feel the part; reviewers hated them and therefore so did the average joe. "But the Solstice and Prowler don't look like Ferraris" I hear you complain based on your other replies - EXACTLY. If the Solstice/Prowler are only a fraction of exoticness of a Ferrari and still failed, how much more would a cheap Ferrari-looking car.

Ferraris don't look like Ferraris because the designers wanted an exotic-looking car. You've got it the wrong way around. Their form follows function. We like the look of Ferraris because they are foremost engineered to be race cars. Their beauty is what's called "functional beauty" and is the same reason why Fighter planes look cool. Someone didn't just dream up a cool looking plane and then designed a fighter plane to look like it, it's the other way round: we think fighter planes look cool because their design is based on pure functionality. Therefore if you have a cheap car that looks like a Ferrari, it will be fake because it was never designed for the same function as a Ferrari. People inherently know this.

An analogy would be those fake fender vents: how many people install these on their car? Arguably having the appearance of fender vents would make a car look "more exotic", and would be perfectly in line with the delusion of having a cheap car "look like a Ferrari". And yet, few people put these on their car because it's fake. The idea is abhorrent to most people of putting something on their car with no function except to draw attention.

I actually have a fast car, and nothing on it is for show only. And people still think I bought it only to show off. That's how most people think, especially in the middle class - the very market segment that would be the target for an "inexpensive Ferrari-looking car". The middle-class on the other hand is predominantly filled with people that have a "tall poppy syndrome" - anyone who rises above is cut down. It's only the elite classes who are used to high achievers and people who stand out from the crowd, that's why conspicuous exotic cars are socially acceptable in elite classes.

[FenwickHockey65]

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.

A car that looked like an F430 with an underpowered engine would be one of the biggest flops in automotive history.

You're obsessing too much over design. Design is only a part of what makes a good car. You talk about how you think the Cruze and Focus are boring and uninspired yet ignore the fact that both vehicles are among the best in the compact class.

So let's go back to what you're talking about, an F430 inspired car with an engine out of a normal daily driver, and figure out who in their right mind would buy it.

You have your average consumer, looking for something fuel efficient, practical, and reliable. Well, an F430 inspired car would obviously have only two doors. Strike one if you have a family. An F430 wouldn't have much cargo room or rear seat room. Strike two. Finally, the cost to develop and produce such a car with all the body work would probably price it at the higher end of the spectrum. Strike three.

Then you have a car guy. Sure, it looks great, sleek and aggressive. The interior is certainly sporty enough. He's a bachelor and couldn't care less about rear seat legroom or cargo space. Then he hits the accelerator...and nothing happens. He gets out, throws the keys back to the salesman, and laughs his way off the lot.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by cab2g

I'm all for fleet averages, if you build average cars, but the reason this car was built was to comply with European fleet average MPG laws... And this car is a complete slap in the face to anybody who had a "real" Ashton Martin... That car will go down in history as being one of the biggest flops in history. Mark my words.

Actually for some unknown reason those stupid things are selling as quick as they can build them, WTF?!?! And aren't they like 70k for a freaking tarted up 16k IQ????

Anyways, on to the ops question, which i think has been covered here.

1: price, it is not only the price of new panels, but what it would cost to make a profit off of what would certainly be a low volume car. The lower the volume, the more you have to charge to cover cost and profit.

2. ease of use, the more exotic it looks, the less user friendly it is going to be. If someone is lookingfor a 20k car, they are not looking for a garage queen, but more something that is going to be driven everyday. Hense it must be user friendly, roomy, have a back seat, easy to use controld, and still maintain the price point.

3. Another point of an entry level car is to get into one of the manufacturers more expensive offerings, hence everything on the next step, must be a step up.

4. The target market for such a car would be way to small to make it something exotic looking, with all the exotic faults. Miatas sell in ver small numbers as mentioned and even those tiny 2 seaters start around 26k I believe

You won't see exotic, but small cars are getting better looking. Hyundai is even going to be offering a coupe version of the Elantra later this year. Of course they do this by keeping all of the sedans hard points, interior, etc in tact, which dictaes he body deminsions. hence why they can even offer a coupe and why it could not have an exotic look.

hope maybe this helps some.