> A Ferrari is entirely optimized to look hot and go fast, and makes a huge number of concessions to those goals. Just try using one as a daily driver and grocery hauler and you'll see why few people do that. But then there are sports cars that are meant as daily drivers, like the BMW M5. The former CTO of Intel said he owns one and uses it as such.
Sure, but this thread is about "middle-class cars", which the M5 definitely is not.
With depreciation and older m5 models, you could definitely fit the initial and maintenance costs of a m5 into a middle class budget.
Because at the end of the day the Ferrari (or Porsche or Lamborghini) design is not a very comfortable or practical design for day to day use. The (two) people I know who own Porsche sports cars also own a second car.
I've never seen anyone doing a daily commute in a Ferrari or Lambo but I've known a few people who drove their 911s every day. 911s are lot more practical (and a good bit cheaper) than their exotic Italian cousins.
I used to live in a very expensive area of London [1] (my university owned about half this block, my room in first year was probably worth £0.5M...).
Many people on the street owned Porsches, Ferraris, and there were two Lamborghinis, most were used daily. But, I think there was a restriction of one car per household parked on the street, and most would only have been driving a very short distance through central London -- usually at about 5-6am, before there was much traffic.
BMWs, Mercedes and Lexus cars were more common than the sports cars, and Porsche cars more common than Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
[1] https://www.google.dk/maps/@51.488953,-0.1788157,3a,75y,230.... (take left turns, I think there are five Porsches, and something I don't recognize. But this is probably the weekend, when most of the rich people were away, and normal people "borrowed" the parking spaces. A Porsche shop is 2 minutes walk away, the Lamborghini shop about 5 minutes.)
I don't know about supercars, but what about simply sleek, small sports cars? Something like the Lotus Elan, Triumph Spitfire or the Porsche 911. First-gen Mazda Miata is the only low-end car that I know that actually looks reasonably sleek and designed (the second-gen looks like a stupid ordinary car). It's no 911, but it has a nice retro charm. A well-designed sports car doesn't need lots of power or anything else…
There are four generations of Miata. I think the newest looks better than most of the stuff on the street today, honestly. (how do you not like the Miata RF?) It's all shockingly generic looking now, IMO. Somehow, incredibly, Maseratis have become popular where I live, but they seem to have done it by looking like Toyotas. (at least they still sound incredible) Even Aston-Martin and Jaguar make stuff that barely rates above "cool."
I spend a fair amount of time wondering why nobody makes anything with a more bug-eyed look similar to either the classic 911 or even the classic 60s sports cars (Lola, GT40, 904, etc.). Modern safety standards and crumple zones probably have something to do with it.
In the documentary Objectified (recommended!), a BMW designer brings up the point that a car design should express what the car is . If there's a mismatch between the look, and how it feels to drive, it will be rejected by customers.
Yes, this is the very practical definition of "tacky" design. It's when something visually promises something that it isn't in performance. Form and function are very much tied together and a car that looks like a Ferrari but feels like a civic would cause a negative cognitive dissonance
It gets even costlier when you take into account that the purpose of the shape of those cars is to increase downforce for better handling around corners. This causes the air drag and the fuel consumption to go through the roof, which is the opposite of what you want out of a four door Mazda.
Not sure that's true. Low drag is incredibly important to the top speeds of those cars. For example a `03 Golf has a CdA of 6.89[1] while a new Ferrari 458 is 0.330[2]. Also, most modern supercars have active aerodynamics to create more downforce at higher speed. [1] http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_D... [2] http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Ferrari/old/458.html
You're comparing CdA for the Golf with Cd for the Ferrari. According to that table, the '03 Golf has a Cd of 0.32, actually lower than 0.33 Cd of the Ferrari. Without knowing the frontal area of the Ferrari, I don't know if its CdA is higher too.
When has a mass produced middle class car ever looked like that Alfa 4C? It's neither mass produced, nor middle class. It shipped with a $67k msrp. You're talking about a car that sells in the hundreds of units.
The 4C has a base price of $55,000. You can spec most mid-sized crossovers into that price territory. They build 3,500 of 'em per year. That's very high compared to say, any given Ferrari or Lamborghini model.
I think the difference might lie in the income level in USA vs EU, but a middle class car in EU is about 25K-35K euros after all taxes.
I always wondered why car companies like Mazda or Hyundai or Honda don't produce cars that may not have the performance capabilities of a Ferrari but resemble one in their shape?
Typical super-car designs embrace wider chassis and lower-sitting suspension. Both are impractical for daily driving. Not to mention the absence of space for occupants or lack of trunk space. Try to sit in any coupe with the second row of seats and you'll instantly feel like a sardine. I think an even bigger issue is that you can't have a car with the super-car design but without the matching horsepower. They just wo…
Lotus Elise, BRZ, Alpha 4C, and others are very nice cars with lower horsepower to match the handling. It's nice to be able to drive something to it's full potential without electronics or loss of license. I haven't owned any of these cars but I do own a 600cc sport bike. Modern 200+ hp litrebikes are now mostly just computers on wheels.
And let's not forget the Miata! The best compromise IMO is to have a dedicated sports car (2-seater, manual transmission, low, light, optionally with ridiculous power depending on budget) and a second vehicle for everything else, like a Honda Element (wish they still made those, compact but roomy, handles well for what it is, truck bed liner in the interior, many seats if you need them) or a quad-cab pickup if you need to e.g. tow heavier stuff. There are some ideas like fast station wagons (Volvo v40 Polestar for ~$60k, automatic only, WRX STI wagon that they don't make anymore, E63 AMG wagon at >$100k also automatic only), fast trucks (SVT Raptor, Chevy SSR, SRT10 RAM), or hot hatches (A45 AMG, M140i, Audi RS1, Megane Trophy-R, Astra VXR, Leon Cupra, Civic Type R, none of which are available in the US...we get the GLA45 which is higher and handles worse, and the M240i which is a coupe), sporty SUVs (Cayenne, Macan, X5M, etc who cares), but all make huge compromises and end up mostly being heavy and/or expensive. For ~$50k new, you could have a real sports car and a real truck or utility vehicle.
I thought about the same thing! I was excited about concept cars, but bored by their mass production counterpart. I always thought that I don't care about the engine or the interior, I would buy it just because of the shape.
I'm also into jeep wrangler. but I it's too fuel hungry. I wonder why they don't make a version without any off road capability with smaller engine but same body style, I would buy it.
Because at the end of the day the Ferrari (or Porsche or Lamborghini) design is not a very comfortable or practical design for day to day use. The (two) people I know who own Porsche sports cars also own a second car.
I've never seen anyone doing a daily commute in a Ferrari or Lambo but I've known a few people who drove their 911s every day. 911s are lot more practical (and a good bit cheaper) than their exotic Italian cousins.
I've never seen anyone doing a daily commute in a Ferrari
There's a retired F1 driver who uses a Ferrari Mondial as a daily driver. That's the opposite of the concept in the op question: A Ferrari that looks somewhat more conventional, yet is a true Ferrari under the bodywork. (It was also quite a bit more reliable than its peers.)