The premise of the quedtion is wrong--they do make these cars. See the Scion FRS. Also Subaru has a car that looks just like it, but I cannot remember the name. Also I would argue the Mazda Miata targets this style, and I have seen a Honda car that looks quite similar to the Miata as well.
I have seen a Honda car that looks quite similar to the Miata as well That would be the S2000. It was a bit upmarket from the Miata and remained on the market longer (10 years) than anything else that tried to compete head to head with the Miata.
Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
161–170 of 222 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#162I can offer an opinion not yet seen in this thread. It comes down to tolerances. My father works for GM as a tool and die maker. He says that GM is obsessed with tolerances in their panels. This means that the gap between the hood and front quarter panel is the same near the windshield as it is near the headlights. Same goes for all other areas of the car. It's hard to get right. If you start to get more complex desi…
This, this, this. In simpler terms: You can't build a "Ferarri shaped car" at the same price as an Chevy Impala because the shape is a part of the cost.
Modern cars are apparently 'very curvy' but if you look closely you will see that the curves are done in plastic, not metal. The metal parts have relatively simple curves to them, when painted the same colours as the plastic bits it all looks good and far from 'boxy'.
As for tolerances - 'fit and finish' - there is more to it than the gaps in the panels. There has to be some tension in the panels for them to hold their shape. A bit of curve is important for this. Compare with vehicles that have totally flat panels, e.g. a Land Rover, where the panels are 'wrinkly' and far from smooth, even if fresh out of the factory.
There is also the matter of platform engineering. In the VW group the bolts that hold the engine in place are the same no matter what the model or the engine size. The Golf has dozens of same but different variants on the same 'platform' : Audi A3, Audi Q3, Audi TT, VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Eos, VW Tiguan, VW Touran, VW Scirocco, SEAT León, SEAT Toledo, SEAT Altea, Škoda Octavia and so on...[1]
All the other volume manufacturers have the same platform based approach, the fundamentals of the car are worked out for the 'Golf' version and then after that the marketing folks and some kids with clay put together the 'remixes', e.g. the Audi TT for the 'hairdresser' market, the Jetta for the 'minicab driver', the SEAT Leon for the 'younger sporty buyer' and so on.
I believe a trip to the paddock at Silverstone is probably the best place to get appreciation of the Ferrari grade cars. The fit and finish on them is not what you would expect when inspected close up. Furthermore, the actual engineering is quite crude compared to the 'Golf'. But, if you are racing and need to fix the car between races then 'crude' is pretty good. If you are going to be rebuilding the engine all the time anyway then who cares that the bushings are primitive and prone to wear out after a few hundred miles? With the 'Golf' there will be rubbery bits mounting the engine, on a Ferrari it is bolted straight onto the chassis with no effort made to damp the vibrations, again not important if you are setting lap times around Silverstone.
Ferrari cars were styled by Pininfarina and the coachwork built by Scaglietti back in the 60's, Fiat subsequently bought the coachworks bit (as per Rolls Royce and Park Ward). Those panels on a Ferrari are very much 'coachworks' built, even if nowadays with carbon fibre composites etc. This is a very different way of building a car to the mechanical press + bits of plastic approach that mass produced cars use.
So yes, the shape is part of the cost. Personally I would prefer the 'Golf' to the 'Ferrari' and this comes down to childhood experiences of visiting car plants. The mass produced cars (MINI) fit together PERFECTLY every time. In the olden days, next to the MINI production line a smaller amount of panels were made for the Jaguar and other brands that used the same body shop for historical reasons. These panels for the deluxe cars had teams of people hammering them into shape as the tooling for them wasn't any good. They didn't fit perfectly!!! Sure the posh cars might have had leather seats and other fancy things but the basic shell was not good - 'lipstick on a pig' is the phrase that springs to mind.
As mentioned it is worth visiting 'the paddock at Silverstone' to look at some of these Ferrari type of cars close up. Also on the track. The Porsche 911 is a relatively tall and 'road car looking' compared to anything that it races against, e.g. the Ferraris, Mclaren things and what-not. Cars for the track are a very different breed to those designed for 'sitting in traffic'. Ferraris obviously have the race heritage and the track mechanical starting point, plus they are still 'coach built' and therefore 10x expensive (which is a minor cost if you are out racing).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_platf...
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#163I can offer an opinion not yet seen in this thread. It comes down to tolerances. My father works for GM as a tool and die maker. He says that GM is obsessed with tolerances in their panels. This means that the gap between the hood and front quarter panel is the same near the windshield as it is near the headlights. Same goes for all other areas of the car. It's hard to get right. If you start to get more complex desi…
This, this, this. In simpler terms: You can't build a "Ferarri shaped car" at the same price as an Chevy Impala because the shape is a part of the cost.
I don't know how it compares to the cost of a Chevy Impala, but it's definitely possible to get the Ferrari look on a budget, here's one example of a kit to convert a Toyota MR2 to look like a Ferrari F360 (similar kits exist for other cars):
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#164As other answers have essentially already said- because Ferrari is a brand, and past a certain price point brand names often matter more than the physical object. Its the same in cars as in designer handbags. The opposite question is equally interesting; why doesn't Ferrari produce a relatively cheap car, so that they can offer the Ferrari cachet to a broader market? Presumably as to not dilute their brand. But it me…
Under Ford ownership, Jaguar did the same thing with the X-Type, and in my opinion, started the decline of the brand. The X-Type was [apparently] designed to allow them to cater to a mid-market customer, but they produced an objectively inferior car with a little bit of Jaguar look, but the fit and finish of a slightly-nicer Ford. I drove one after having owned other Jaguars and the cheap switchgear, loud engine, exc…
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#165Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
The emphasis on MPG is driven by regulation, not consumer choice. Auto manufacturers are required to satisfy fleet-average MPG requirements that have continuously risen over years. Most low- and mid-hanging engine efficiency improvements have been picked, so drag reduction is just about all that's left. This is why the large bulk of modern cars all look like identical eggs even though consumers would pay for non-egg…
Isn't that an American-only regulation?
http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/case_studies/eur...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/07/eu-state...
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#167https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_Cars#Zenos_E10S
No it's not like Ferrari but the concept seems cool. Build carbon fiber cars with Ford engines and sell for a good price. No roof or openable doors though.
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#168 "I don't sell cars; I sell engines.
The cars I throw in for free since
something has to hold the engines in."
People never quite get the ideas behind Enzo Ferrari machines.Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#169Because it's dishonest. You also get all the discomfort and impracticality of a supercar with none of the benefits. You just project some status until people discover what car you're actually driving.
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?
#170Arguably this is what Delorean tried to do. But think: what are the advantages of the shape, as opposed to the rest of the Ferrari-ness? It looks cool. What are the disadvantages? Well, you lose a lot of luggage space and visibility, and you have a low driving position. People seem generally to prefer a high driving position - it's why SUVs are so popular. There are a few intermediaries; the Jaguar X-Type is a Ford M…
I thought so too, but on the other hand, the success of cheap wannabe SUVs like the Qashqai shows that the "aspirational" market can be very rewarding if you can find the right balance.
It's a bit like nobody wants an iPhone-like chinese replica, but quality Android "slabs" can be very desirable.