Questionable modifications: pictures inside!

  • Thread starter -Fred-
  • 38,814 comments
  • 2,747,301 views
This one's a bit quirky, but has it's bonuses. This is a third generation Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z that was given quite a treatment, visually. The rear seems to have had a facelifted Corvette C4 rear end mashed onto the rear of it with a Charger Daytona-like rear wing.
The wheels and the paintwork are probably my least favorite things about this car. The rest of the car is somewhat cool if you really think about it. Maybe if the car had a set of period custom wheels (for instance mesh wheels) and if the paintwork wasn't as hideous, I wouldn't mind owning something like this. Maybe giving it a wider body kit would help, and some engine upgrades, most importantly.

IMG_0407.JPG

IMG_0408.JPG
 
Excessive camber doesn't make a car cool. Isn't that common knowledge among gearheads by now? They look rubbish and undriveable, even compared to the outlandish street machines of the 70's (which are quite dear to my heart when it comes to cars tbh)
 
To reiterate what I said before, these "stancenation" cars just are bad imo both functionally and visually. For function, I cringe when I hear the bottoms of these cars scraping against the street. The fact that they're so low to a point where they can't get up driveways without some ramp is ridiculous. The only exception to that problem are the ones with airbag suspension.

For looks, I just think it looks ugly and unsettling for the most part. They all to me look like their suspension broke or something at the low heights these cars are set at. That feeling I have extends also to the ones with a lot of negative camber. They look like their wheels are going to break off, it just seems so unnatural. For all of these reasons, that's why I find "stancenation" cars to be a big cringefest.
 
My problem with Stancenation is back when I was 12 in GT3 I use to lower the cars as much as I could then put the camber as negative as I could.

I also use to really love the rice rockets from FF.

Basically, Stance is for 12 year olds.
 
For the most part I'd agree with all that has been said about the Stance Nation stuff.

However, it can be done tastefully, and that RX-7 and MK3 Supra (admittedly with a little less camber) are perfect examples of that.

Things stop being tasteful when you start seeing Aventadors and 458's etc with those Liberty Walk kits, and sadly now the same can be said of the Rocket Bunny kits.

Aside from that, it's the overly excessive camber that kills it for me, which that S2000 (biased maybe :lol:) highlights perfectly for me. It's that Hellaflush rubbish which the S2000 seems to be one of the biggest sufferers of, which annoy's me even more considering what the S2000 is capable of

Basically what I'm saying is, yes it's quite cringe worthy for the most part, but it can, and has been done tastefully.
 
Last edited:
Thankfully we have air suspension
shawn.gif

But anyways I'm what you call a stance faggot, ricer, kid, retard etc whatever you call it lol :dunce:
 
I think I can quantify why I abhor the excessively-lowered (regardless of how that ride height is achieved) "stance" trend (in this context I'm using it as the fanboys use it, because I've said many times that stance is something all road-going vehicles have when in proper working order).

When we break down a vehicle to its barest bones and section it off horizontally, we're left with two parts: the greenhouse (the space comprised largely of glass) and everything below it. As we lower a car, its bottom half shrinks while its greenhouse remains the same and the lowered car is left in a state of visual imbalance.

Anyway...

b06fdee55f92a77a32a6ec171ffb1d62.jpg
 
TexRex
As we lower a car, its bottom half shrinks while its greenhouse remains the same and the lowered car is left in a state of visual imbalance.
Click to expand...
That's it! That is what is unsettling about it to me, it visually doesn't seem balanced and that's why I find it ugly.
 

Latest Posts

Back