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

[toesuf94]

Originally Posted by rez333

geez. I wrote an extensive analytical piece, and used the Solstice as an example of people wanting function over form (exotic form + no function = fake), and there's half a dozen posts implying that no-ones even read it.


(see my earlier post with blue text)

You did...sorry. :( Well written. Sorry to say that NOBODY had mentioned the Kappa twins.

[rez333]

I think the part of my post that talks about "functional beauty" is the key answer to the OP question, and yet it's gone largely ignored.

To reiterate: the Ferrari looks cool because it's design has function and has roots in F1. Simply having a similar design without the function is fake/pretentious, which is not a position that appeals to the middle-class. The elite classes, who have more individuals who generally stand out from the crowd, tolerate conspicuous stances and therefore exotic looking cars are acceptable to that social class (but real exotics, not just ones that pretend).

[The Stig]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

LOL those things are UGLY though! Im talking about beautiful styling!

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

nah, yuck that thing is too bubbly and way too much chunk.

That's what your going to get in an "affordable economy car"

[Black5thgen]

Used Corvette [/thread]

[Number 3]

It depends on what makes a car "exotic".

Exotic - from dictionary.com


1. of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized: exotic foods; exotic plants.

2. strikingly unusual or strange in effect or appearance: an exotic hairstyle.

3. of a uniquely new or experimental nature: exotic weapons.

4. of, pertaining to, or involving stripteasing: the exotic clubs where strippers are featured.

So if you want low, sleek and sporty, those are not high volume cars. High volume cars need trunks and back seats and good visibility (try to see out the back of any "exotic") and be easy to drive and park and get in and out of. There is a reason why the Camry and Accord sell in bucket loads and the 2 seat sports cars sell in the 10s of thousands.

Also, another thing that makes a car "exotic" is the high end materials and craftsmanship used. To make a car affordable you are giving up almost all of those bits and pieces as well.

So the car you want, a low cost exotic, has been tried and generally failed over the years. MR2, Solstice/Sky, Honda 2000.

I remember whe the Solstice first came out it was $19,995. A virtual steal. Problem was to get a good one like my Sky Redline, you were up to the mid 30s.

In the end it's business case. Sales of $20,000 cars with low slung looks and poor occupant packaging wont sell in high volumes thus destroying any chance of profitability.

[The Stig]

in defense of the Honda 2000 - those things are stupid fast

[nester7929]

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.

Where did I say cars that sell at high volumes are ugly?

I'm talking about the look too. Exotics are considered to be exiting because it's something you don't see everyday, and that's part of the reason why the look grabs you. If there were millions of f430s all over the road, you wouldn't look twice when one came across. I think the Corvette is beautiful, but it isn't rare enough to be exotic.

[fielderLS3]

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.

[liquidsmoke]

I think we may be focusing too much on the word "exotic" and what cars we consider to fall into that category. I think the op is really just trying to say " good looking cars", or a lot better than average looking cars. Not specificly a ferrari or Bugatti Which everyone considers exotic, but more along the lines of an Audi TT. it's not an R8, but it's not a cheap looking bucket either. It's not 20 grand, but nothing about its looks says it couldn't be 20 grand. They start at 38 grand and are common enough cars and they look good. On the flip side, you have the VW bug which is very similar to the TT and if it's anything like the passat or a4 I owned, they share a lot of parts too. The bug starts at just under 20 grand. Has an iconic look, but isn't exotic and while I personally don't like the look of the bug I don't believe VW held anything back in its design.
But there are plenty of cars in this price range and below, where it's pretty clear the designers didnt give rats ass how it looked.
I don't think it specificly has anything to do with race car looks. Like some one said earlier, race car looks are form following function, and since the function is high performance they look that way and cost that much because of the performance. But a cheap car can look just as good, and at the same time not look like its trying to be a sports car when it's not.
Also, like someone else said about people not wanting to fake it. I think some design elements are off limits and others don't get used because designers don't want to fake it for a car that clearly isn't a sports car, or a luxury car.
It would be cool if we had an actual designer from a crappy car speak about what the hell happened and why it looks the way it looks.
After reading everyone's replies, I see it's not as simple an answer as I believed at first.
While I still don't believe expense is the sole reason ugly cars are ugly, I think it's just one of the many reasons things don't turn out looking good.

[SleepWarz]

Because its far to expensive to make things look different. And for some reason let the people whose jobs have far outlived their usefulness are still allowed make rediculious design decisions and influence the age of bland. We have been stuck in this age since the mid 70s.

For whatever reason the Camaro breaks this trend, hard. We got lucky to have what we have now.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

nah, yuck that thing is too bubbly and way too much chunk.

The Kappa twins basically embodied everything you're asking for, sports car looks in a reasonably fuel efficient while still fun to drive package. I don't know what more you want.

Apparently you just have very limited taste in cars. Not saying that's a bad thing, you're just going to have a hard time finding anything you really like.