Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 222 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#51

Post by XorNot »

tyingq wrote: post #26
pmontra wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, and if it's cheap at least it must be as fast as the real thing or faster, to silence the people laughing at the owner of what they think is a fake.

Good point. You can do well if you make a relatively inexpensive fast car, and you don't even need to make it look like a supercar to run with that pack. The Mitsubishi Evo has been highly successful, and keeps up with much pricier cars...even bone stock, with no performance parts added. It looks like a typical 4 door economy car with some spoilers added. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees2aZcDUn8 (BBC's Top Gear: E…

Of course, you could also have any type of car and just get dominated by someone who's crammed a huge HP engine into an old-looking Golf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE5x9vlb0ss

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#52

Post by RichardHeart »

Cool shapes usually encroach on interior space. The most space efficient vehicle that you could fit in a parking spot would be cubic shaped, perhaps not so pretty or aerodynamic. A better question might be, why are these new cars so terribly ugly in general. Like the Pontiac Aztek and Citroen Picasso.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#54

Post by steffan »

maxander wrote: post #11

As 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, excessive road noise, and poor performance put it in sharp contrast to the rest of their line.

They could have produced a car equivalent to their full-size sedans, but they couldn't have done it for that price point.

Undoubtedly part of the appeal for the corporate parent was the sharing of (IIRC) the Ford Mondeo platform, saving them the development costs of an entirely new vehicle.

The problem with that approach is that people who like a brand for the brand's sake don't want the 'Cheap' version, and people who can afford the expensive version as a status symbol don't want their prestige reduced by sharing the same marque as someone with the less-expensive version.

It's human psychology, and part of the reasoning behind 'Lexus' being a separate brand vs. just an expensive Toyota.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#56

Post by mcguire »

andr wrote: post #15

The Toyota GT86, Mazda MX5, and Nissan 370Z are examples of that. However, looking at how many models were discontinued (Honda S2000, Toyota Supra, Toyota Celica, Mazda RX8), maybe the market opportunity is not as big.

I miss the S2000. I just drove one once and it was more than I wanted to pay, but it was damn fun.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#57

Post by MrFoof »

dagw wrote: post #16

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.

Porsche sports car owner here. I don't need to drive daily, but when I do, that's what's used.

People who have sports cars tend to have a second (or third or fourth) car because they have the funds available to afford being able to have other options available. Some Porsche sports cars are tremendous daily drivers -- a 911 Turbo is simultaneously a race car, a Toyota Camry, a snowmobile and a Bentley.

Sold Porsches in a former life. Third car was most typical, with it only being used for pleasure and special occasions. 911s were usually used most often as daily drivers, as opposed to the mid-engine cars, even though the MR layout cars have more cargo space (10 or 15 cubic feet). I'm a very rare breed, considering I live in New England and mine doesn't even have a proper roof (manual "procedure" to remove/install instead of a single button, and is always driven top down, regardless of weather).

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#58

Post by mcguire »

They're not terribly practical. They are fairly large, only seat two, and have no cargo capacity. Low suspensions have...difficulties in many situations. They are also not especially aerodynamic compared to most modern sedans.

I have a Corvette, which is a freaking hatch back compared to most high end sportscars.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#59

Post by vidanay »

giarc wrote: post #38

I 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.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris?

#60

Post by seshagiric »

Really good question!

Costlier cars need to stand out from the ordinary. And to stand out designers come up with fancy curves, shapes etc. From a manufacturing point of view these 'non standard' items result in more cost which the mid-range cars cant afford. For example there is more wastage in cutting a curvy door from the sheet metal as compared to a standard rectangle shaped one.

It is interesting to note that as time goes by, what was fancy once eventually becomes 'standard' and the features get into the mid-range priced cars as well. Auto-shift is probably a good example. Automatic rear trunk opener is another and so on.

Post reply on HN