Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.
- Thread starter -Fred-
- 222 comments
- 12,770 views
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
RocZX
Premium
- 8,849
- New York
Chevy SSR
I always saw it as alittle pointless, it made no sense to me on what it was supposed to be.
It's a sports truck that is not usefully as a truck. It could be a ute but it built on a SUV platform so it not one. Is it suppose to be a sports car but with a truck body, it has the engine and HP numbers to be on but weight as much as an SUV and it handles like one.
I always saw it as alittle pointless, it made no sense to me on what it was supposed to be.
It's a sports truck that is not usefully as a truck. It could be a ute but it built on a SUV platform so it not one. Is it suppose to be a sports car but with a truck body, it has the engine and HP numbers to be on but weight as much as an SUV and it handles like one.
- 23,800
- Philippines
The SSR. Yet another concept everyone wanted but nobody liked enough to buy. Where GM took the body of an angel and wrapped it around the guts of a cow. 
-
The Clubman drives so nicely that it's a shame nobody buys it... instead going for the ungainly, truck-ish, ill-riding and odd-handling Countryman, instead.
For a brand that prides itself on how its cars drive, MINI sort of dropped the ball on that one. The Paceman is better, but is pretty, well, pointless.
Nice car, though.
Probably. But probably better with a chassis built around the motor, specifically set up for it.
There's a reason 911s are fantastic race cars. Traction. Lots and lots of it. Rear engine cars have the same engine-over-drive-wheel traction advantages of front-wheel drive cars (FF aces FR in slippery conditions) , without the issue of weight shuffling to the back on acceleration. (911s are some of the best accelerating factory cars out there) They also have the added benefit of perfect weight distribution under braking, which is also a very good thing. RR cars are tricky in some situations, yes, but with proper tuning, they can be made into great road cars and dominant race cars (within the limits of the GT3 class).
Granted, a 911-powered Cayman could be epic, but the amount of money that goes into converting one could be better spent fettling an actual 911. If we're talking about a Subaru-powered Cayman, however...
Glitch in the matrix. Not the first time that's happened in the past week.
-
The Clubman drives so nicely that it's a shame nobody buys it... instead going for the ungainly, truck-ish, ill-riding and odd-handling Countryman, instead.
For a brand that prides itself on how its cars drive, MINI sort of dropped the ball on that one. The Paceman is better, but is pretty, well, pointless.
Nice car, though.
Probably. But probably better with a chassis built around the motor, specifically set up for it.
There's a reason 911s are fantastic race cars. Traction. Lots and lots of it. Rear engine cars have the same engine-over-drive-wheel traction advantages of front-wheel drive cars (FF aces FR in slippery conditions) , without the issue of weight shuffling to the back on acceleration. (911s are some of the best accelerating factory cars out there) They also have the added benefit of perfect weight distribution under braking, which is also a very good thing. RR cars are tricky in some situations, yes, but with proper tuning, they can be made into great road cars and dominant race cars (within the limits of the GT3 class).
Granted, a 911-powered Cayman could be epic, but the amount of money that goes into converting one could be better spent fettling an actual 911. If we're talking about a Subaru-powered Cayman, however...
Glitch in the matrix. Not the first time that's happened in the past week.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Okay, we're going to do a bit of a walkthrough on the Jeep Compass here. The one you see above is a 2007 model year Compass, coming out juuuuuusssttttt before the whole bankruptcy thing fell on the head of Chrysler. We're talking about a company, still managed by Mercedes, that largely didn't know what they wanted, much less seemed to know what they were doing. Under the leadership of the one and only Dr. Z, they decided, "Hey! We should have two compact offerings at Jeep! Ones that are exactly the same underneath as the Dodge Caliber!" In addition to the Compass, there was the Patriot...
...A Jeep that looked a bit more the part, had a little more going for it in the looks department, and ultimately was the overall sales champion of the two.
Now, I know that there is an argument that can be made for the Compass/Patriot to exist. In fact, I absolutely agree with you. A cheap, easy-to-drive, fairly capable, compact, 4WD thing was what Jeep needed to increase sales and lower their MPG figures for the upcoming standards raise at the time. Problem was, did there really need to be two of them? Could you make an argument that there were technically three with the 4WD Dodge Caliber?
Chrysler's argument was thus: The Patriot appealed to Jeep traditionalists, or folks who identified with the basic shape, leading you into an entry level Jeep that was (surprisingly) Trail Rated in some configurations. The Compass, on the other hand, was meant (as they claimed) for "city folk." Presumably with "no taste." And "non-functioning eyes." Jeep was so desperate to sell these damn things, they partnered up with MTV, and made those poor souls on The Real World drive them around in whatever shenanigans they were getting into. But was it really any better than the Caliber? I'd argue no. In fact, it was almost identical in terms of... well... everything.
I can happily say that the Patriot makes total sense. Its the same kind of sense that makes the new Renegade work. But, the Compass simply defies logic in a time of great distress at Chrysler. Too much money was spent putting seven slots on a Caliber. Furthermore, when you make two versions of the same thing, but one isn't capable of being Trail Rated... That's a problem.
... But then there's the other thing...
After Fiat got ahold of Chrysler and decided they wanted to make a significant investment on each of the current models, their reworking of the Compass made a bit more sense:
The Compass turned into something reasonably good-looking, both inside and out, and seemed to be overall, and purposeful vehicle once the Caliber had gone far, far away.
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 23,800
- Philippines
Glitch in the forum software. I've seen it happen a lot over the past week or two. Best to double-check posts after you've posted them.
- 3,200
- Murcie LP710
My main pointless one is the one I nominated on the Cool Wall a couple of rounds ago:
Yes it's another super-SUV which technically does have some purpose, however that doesn't mean that Ford Performance Vehicles should have bothered with it. The Territory Turbo was already fast and gas-guzzling enough; this took it to a whole new level which is probably why they only built about a third of their already quite low projection number of about 600 units.
It didn't have the normal Territory's 7-seat option, it had about as much use off-road as the Falcon on which it was based, the one pro being that it was essentially an FPV F6 with a giant boot....but all the other cons significantly outweighed it.
Yes it's another super-SUV which technically does have some purpose, however that doesn't mean that Ford Performance Vehicles should have bothered with it. The Territory Turbo was already fast and gas-guzzling enough; this took it to a whole new level which is probably why they only built about a third of their already quite low projection number of about 600 units.
It didn't have the normal Territory's 7-seat option, it had about as much use off-road as the Falcon on which it was based, the one pro being that it was essentially an FPV F6 with a giant boot....but all the other cons significantly outweighed it.
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Its pointless as an automobile, as a piece of art it work quite well
- 34,629
- Addison,Texas
- GTP_RACECAR
I guess I can see that, I just don't understand the need for car makers to make essentially stretched versions or SUV versions of a car. Its kinda why I'm not too keen on that new Jaguar SUV. I sorta feel like the Countryman is a good example that you can follow the design language without making essentially an overweight version of a car.
Served in the development of the Huayra, which actually makes it not useless.
Also, pretty sure that is a render and not even the actual car, this is:
Last edited:
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
Test mules are private projects, not dealership cars, this doesn't count as a point.I guess I can see that, I just don't understand the need for car makers to make essentially stretched versions or SUV versions of a car. Its kinda why I'm not too keen on that new Jaguar SUV. I sorta feel like the Countryman is a good example that you can follow the design language without making essentially an overweight version of a car.
Served in the development of the Huayra, which actually makes it not useless.
Also, pretty sure that is a render and not even the actual car, this is:
This thing costs $1.5 million and you can't drive it, that sort of defeats the point of a car and is therefore pointless. Don't mistake this as a dislike for the Zonda, I love the car, it filled the hole left by Lamborghini when Audi took over, but the R is completely pointless. Not road legal, not race legal, just an expensive car shaped dust catcher in someone's garage.
- 34,629
- Addison,Texas
- GTP_RACECAR
Except its not a test mule as it shares almost nothing with the road going Zonda and its actually a complete car. This car was an engineer exercise that doubled as a test bed for components that ended up on the Pagani Huayra so I don't see how its "pointless". By your same line of reasoning, the Ferrari FXX is also pointless because you don't even own it and are essentially paying to drive a car that again, you don't even own.
I never did actually
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 44,474
- Texas
Your horsepower argument could be applied to almost anything. Why do you need a 500 HP 911 over a regular Carrera since you won't used it all the time?
They're there because they fill a specific market. The Cayenne outsells everything Porsche makes, so why not expand that by catering to those who want Turbo performance in it.
Except its not a test mule as it shares almost nothing with the road going Zonda and its actually a complete car. This car was an engineer exercise that doubled as a test bed for components that ended up on the Pagani Huayra so I don't see how its "pointless". By your same line of reasoning, the Ferrari FXX is also pointless because you don't even own it and are essentially paying to drive a car that again, you don't even own.
Just fyi, the FXX was used as a development car as well, quite a bit more than the Zonda R was since the owners' feedback was valued by Ferrari.
But, I agree with you. Not a pointless car & it is track legal despite what his post says.
Last edited:
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
What was the point of this thing? Was Chrysler really that desperate?
Full-size wagon.
Too bad everyone who would buy one had been convinced wagons were "dorky" and they needed an SUV that was worse in every way (except perhaps off-road capability they'll never use anyway) instead.
That's why I hate crossovers, actually. They're an excellent example of fashion-induced stupidity. There are people who won't be seen in wagons or minivans because they supposedly have image problems (perhaps they smack of family too much?), but if you take a wagon or minivan and jack it up in the air so it's clumsier, slower, less aerodynamic, more expensive to run, and generally worse, then suddenly it's cool and fashionable and those same people buy them without second thoughts. Seriously?
Last edited:
- 24,883
- Somewhere.
I don't know if anyone pointed this out but the Honda Crosstour (someone did post the ZDX which is based on it), is also pretty bad.
The Crosstour is (was?) based on the Accord platform, not the ZDX/MDX/Pilot. If you put them side by side you can see just how much bigger one is to the other.
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
You're right. Car manufacturers can't afford to take many risks.
But you of all people, a VW Up owner, should understand that it isn't that much of a risk. VAG designing three different city cars would be a huge risk. VAG designing a VW Up and then sticking a SEAT and a Skoda badge on it and selling it to slightly different customers reduces the risk of designing an all-new small car hugely.
The same goes for say, an A6 and an A7. When they use the same platform, the same engines, many of the same interior fittings, the same electronic systems, the same wheels, tyres, brakes, suspension etc, where's the risk?
I cannot see how this part is so difficult to understand.
That "you go and find another car you like the look of" is exactly why Audi builds an A5 Sportback. The greatest risk of all is not designing a product people want and them going to another manufacturer!
Last edited:
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Yeah I agreed and basically said that..
In that case I'd say it does have more of a purpose than an investment...though I question if it dos to us common folk still. If it was the Zonda R like you've shown I would have to go back on what I first said.I guess I can see that, I just don't understand the need for car makers to make essentially stretched versions or SUV versions of a car. Its kinda why I'm not too keen on that new Jaguar SUV. I sorta feel like the Countryman is a good example that you can follow the design language without making essentially an overweight version of a car.
Served in the development of the Huayra, which actually makes it not useless.
Also, pretty sure that is a render and not even the actual car, this is:
If the Zonda R isn't necessary than to those then the Ferrari FXX is even more so and so on.
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What was the point of this thing? Was Chrysler really that desperate?
What do you mean it's a wagon surely that doesn't need explaining...
I dare you to say that to these
And really more of an argument could be made against these than the Magnum, also SRT-8 Magnum doesn't like your comment.
Last edited:
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
Your dad has an older Ford F-250, right? How is that running and driving these days? Also, out of curiosity, how many miles are on it?
New trucks can still take quite a beating and be quite reliable. I have personal experience with at least 10 4th Gen Dodge trucks with the 6.7 Cummins that have well over 200K miles on them and they run flawlessly. Their owned by hotshotters as well as ranchers so they don't have the easiest life and apart from general maintenance they have all been practically trouble free. Generally the thought that new trucks are worthless is spouted by people who don't have any experience with them.
Don't get me wrong, I love my truck. I love how simple it is, I love that I can open the hood and have access to all 6 cylinders with ease, I love that the only "emissions" equipment it has on it is an intercooler and I love that a big dually, diesel truck can get 25mpg on the highway. My truck has 400K extremely trouble free miles on it and I expect at least that many more from it as well, but these new trucks can be just as capable and reliable too. Sure they're a pain to work on (almost any Ford has since the 6.0) but they can take abuse and they get you to where you're going, very comfortable I might add.
I should also note that my experience is with trucks equipped with diesel engines. We don't do gasoline engines in trucks that need to work for a living.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
Yes he does. Runs like a champ, fires right up no problem. Drives fine and is mechanically in great shape other than needing an e rake cable. The body is shot due to rust but thats fixable. Frame has 662k on it. Body it changes per part due to living in the rust belt as some stuff has been change and stolen.
Your truck is what I would qualify as an older one that can take the abuse. Thats one of the beet Dodge ever built. Its the new ones (2004 and up really) especially Ford that just don't hold up with all the garbage the government wants in them.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
