Unpopular Opinions- Cars in General

[Volksauto]

Not sure but it seems like a lot of people I know in person don't agree with me on this.
IMO the Bugattis form the prewar days are much more special and plain more awesome than ones from the 21st century.
Sure the new Bugattis are spectacular cars and I'd love to own a Chiron or Veyron any day but I'd still prefer their classic models for a few reasons:

1. They are gorgeous automobiles

Many of the ultra luxurious Bugattis of the '20s and '30s were rolling museum pieces. They didn't have many governmental regulations preventing designers to design almost anything.

2. They were very rare, coach-built cars

This is a colorized photograph of the famous Bugatti Royale "Esders" Roadster of 1932. There were only 7 Bugatti Type 41 Royale chassis' made. This car, was one off car owned by Dr. Armand Esders. He bought the chassis for about $20,000 and had the body coach built for him. He wanted his car to not have headlights because he believed nobody should drive at night.
Bugattis these days lack that extreme rarity and sense of owning something truly tailored to you and special.

3. Vintage Bugattis were VERY unusual

The 1935 Type 57 Aerolithe Coupe used an Elektron metal for its body panels. It is a very durable and lightweight metal however extremely flammable in very high heat so it cannot be welded. So Jean Bugatti's solution was to rivet all of the body panels and created a very beautiful, art deco, and unorthodox look.

3. They had a great racing history (no explanation needed)

1927 Type 35 GP

1955 GP 251

1936 Type 57G "Tank"

 

[Tornado]

BMW M5 E34 pre-facelift, 311 horsepower (101 more than the Thema) and RWD.

See point about "taking the DC5 to task because it would get wasted by an SRT-4 Neon."

BMW M5 E28, 286 horsepower and RWD.

The other car that was literally way ahead of everyone else on the market in the segment, before it was replaced by the above.



It took Omegas tuned by Lotus, 300Es tuned by AMG or (later) 300Es built by Porsche to go hunting for either of the two above. It's not a particularly strong stick to beat any specific other car with of the time.

Audi V8, 247 horsepower and AWD.

No more a sport sedan than a W12 Volkswagen Phaeton was in 2005. Probably not particularly faster anyway (if not slower), since it was two whole size classes above the Thema and was a fully loaded AWD luxury flagship for the entire brand. You might as well bring up the 750i, XJ12 and 560SEL and say the Thema wasn't powerful compared to them.


The car you're looking for here would be the 200 Turbo. That released only a couple years later and had similar power and also available AWD in a similar class, but was also several hundred pounds heavier if you got that AWD.

Mercedes-Benz 400E, 275 horsepower and RWD.

Not even in the time zone of being a sport sedan. Also didn't debut until the 8.32 was in its final year, nevermind being available when the Thema debuted.

Alfa Romeo 164 Quadrifolgio, 231 horsepower and RWD.

Fundamentally the same car as the Thema. Did not debut until the 8.32 had already gone out of production, nevermind being available when the Thema debuted. Also wasn't RWD, hence "Quad".


Hell, at this point I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Saab 9000 Aero, which was also fundamentally the same car as the Thema and also didn't come out until the 8.32 went out of production.

Hell, even the Americans could do it faster. The original Taurus SHO put out 220hp and had a faster 0-60 time than the Thema (6.8s compared to 7.2).

You try to spin this as if it's a negative for the Lancia when it certainly sounds like the 0-60 times from the 3300 pound 220hp car and the 3100 pound 215 horsepower car would be about a push; and a ~7 second 0-60 time was pretty quick for 1987. You're certainly not going to find any period tests actually comparing them like for like under the same conditions, and the Taurus was pretty much the fastest non-M5/non-750i sedan you could buy in America when it debuted.




Those durn fool Italians for putting out a car with a similarly racy engine to the Yamaha V6 that was pretty much just as fast as the 3rd-fastest-sedan-in-the-US-Taurus that debuted the following year.

 

[TheCracker]

I think people are missing the point that the Thema 8.32 was little more than a halo car for Lancia. It wasn't designed to compete with BMW, Mercedes or Audi, or whoever, in the way that manufacturers are expected to do these days. It was just a relative low-volume model (and no quicker than their own Delta Intergrale-engined Thema Turbo) and was built to shine a light on Lancia, not out-perform an M5.

 

[Turbo]

Gallardo > Huracan.

 

[SiriusR]

Gallardo > Huracan.

I'd say it seems to be quite normal to prefer older cars to newer ones, especially if older ones came with a manual transmission.
Personally, I like the restyled Gallardo models, but dislike the original model with its own Superleggera derivative. Kinda same regarding Murcielagos.

 

[MedigoFlame]

This would probably fit the facelift thread, but I figured this is rather unpopular. I actually find the pre-facelift Cherokee (at least in Trailhawk trim) look alright. (It's kind of grown on me) The facelift doesn't work...

 

[Volksauto]

I like minivans of the 1980's are pretty cool because they are so unusual looking. Some were very space age, and others were like an over sized station wagon. Also, I feel they are going to be pretty collectible in the near future just because of nostalgic memories from owners.
1984 Plymouth Voyager

1984 Renault Espace

1985 Toyota VAN

1989 Pontiac Trans Sport

1986 Ford Aerostar

1985 Mitsubishi Chariot

 

[Turbo]

Unpopular opinion: Bugatti EB110> Veyron

Simply put, the EB110 was beyond revolutionary for it's time, the early 1990s. Nearly 600 horsepower, all-wheel-drive, 0-60 of 3.2 seconds and a top speed of 217mph was unheard of in 1992. Styling wise, it's stunning from every angle, as well as timeless; even in 2018, it still appears relatively new looking. And although it's popularity is overshadowed by the newer, faster Veyron and Chiron, the EB110 was far more pivotal in Bugatti's history; it signaled a rebirth of the once legendary marque, kicking off a slew of mesmerizing, record-breaking hypercars.

The Veyron, albeit quicker, more popular, and "cooler", doesn't have the specialty factor and futuristic-ness of the EB110.

 

[SVX]

pivotal in Bugatti's history;

Pivotal to their great success in... liquidation?

 

[Turbo]

Pivotal to their great success in... liquidation?

Without the EB110 being produced, a result of Romano Artioli's renaissance of the company, it is likely that VAG wouldn't even think to buy the brand, hence the Veyron and Chiron wouldn't exist. Bugatti was long dead by the 1990s; it hadn't made a new vehicle in forty years by that point. Yes, the poor economic climate in Europe, and the USA to a lesser extent in 1995 hindered sales of ultra-expensive performance cars, so it was almost predictable that Bugatti wouldn't pan out well. It was the right vehicle for the wrong time; the actual car was not a failure nor did it tarnish the marque's reputation.

Rumor has it that Bugatti was planning a hypercar targeted for the USA market dubbed the "Bugatti America" that would debut in 1995, but never went passed the preparatory stage due to Bugatti S.p.A. running out of cash.

So... the EB110 was pivotal in the sense that it put Bugatti back on the map, not that it brought huge financial success. People began associating high-performance marvels with the Bugatti name, as a result. And as we know, these types of cars are drooled over the most.

 

[Tornado]

I love the EB110, but I imagine if it was particularly influential to Volkswagen (as opposed to just being another feather in Ferdinand Piechs' cap when he was flaunting the company after buying Lamborghini, Bentley and trying to buy Rolls Royce) they wouldn't have taken such pains to restart the company in another country under another name just like when Artioli had done so the decade prior.



Put another way: Piech was collecting war trophies at VW at the time to show off how great VW's engineers were. Bugatti may well have been the flagship of the bunch completely irrelevant of what Artioli had done with it.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I don't think putting a Twin Turbo V6 in the current Ford GT was a mistake. If the Jaguar XJ220 and Nissan GT-R can be competitive supercars with a Twin Turbo V6, then I don't see how the Ford GT can't be. Yes, it's missing the sound of a V8, but the sound isn't the most important part of a car imo.

 

[Darla Starch]

Here's one:
Crew-cab trucks should be restricted to the more basic trim levels.

 

[Sage Ages]

The 86/BRZ doesn't need 300hp. It could benefit from some more power/torque but it doesn't need that much.*




*assuming this is like coming straight from the factory.

 

[Michelin Man]

I don't think putting a Twin Turbo V6 in the current Ford GT was a mistake. If the Jaguar XJ220 and Nissan GT-R can be competitive supercars with a Twin Turbo V6, then I don't see how the Ford GT can't be. Yes, it's missing the sound of a V8, but the sound isn't the most important part of a car imo.

Ditto.

I would probably even go as far as to say, that missing the "iconic" V8 sound isn't a bad thing. And at the end of the day, the GT was built to go racing, with the road car forming part of the homologation process (which was done in an interesting manner granted. Though no rules were really broken in making the race car before the road car so...), and the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 was perfect for the job, having been proved in race trim already in the Riley-Ford Daytona Prototype.

Plus, as a personal opinion, I feel the sound of 6-cylinder engine general betters the sound of a "generic" V8, be it cross plane or otherwise (granted there are some exceptions) and the Ecoboost V6 in the GT sounds really good to me. Even more so in full GTLM race trim, where that guttural sound of the TT V6 comes to life (like it or loathe it). Preferences aside, the V6 was chosen because it was clearly the best for the job, and the the whole car was built around it as a result no doubt, and ultimately the "new" Ford GT is better off for it in my opinion.

 

[TexRex]

Here's one:
Crew-cab trucks should be restricted to the more basic trim levels.

Would you be kind enough to explain that? I'm not even saying I disagree, hell I've never had one or even had the desire to have one, but I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning.

 

[Darla Starch]

Would you be kind enough to explain that? I'm not even saying I disagree, hell I've never had one or even had the desire to have one, but I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning.

Honestly it's not the tiniest bit logical why. Primarily it's so I can see some diversity in truck layouts when I'm out and about.

 

[TexRex]

Honestly it's not the tiniest bit logical why. Primarily it's so I can see some diversity in truck layouts when I'm out and about.

That's absolutely ridiculous, and yet I can't imagine any well-reasoned argument being nearly so entertaining.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

-> ...

I'd say it seems to be quite normal to prefer older cars to newer ones, especially if older ones came with a manual transmission.
Personally, I like the restyled Gallardo models, but dislike the original model with its own Superleggera derivative. Kinda same regarding Murcielagos.

^ The only Gallardo I care about is that anything that says LP550-2 w/ a 6-speed gated manual.

 

[SiriusR]

^ The only Gallardo I care about is that anything that says LP550-2 w/ a 6-speed gated manual.

While I personally couldn't care less about the stick shift, I did like the idea of an RWD model.

 

[Turbo]

Unpopular opininion: I think Lexus's overly large, angular grille looks rather good on their cars, but only the cars. On the IS, GS, etc, I've grown to like this controversial grille and it seems to mesh nicely with the rest of the car. However, on the crossovers/SUVs, it doesn't fit as well, looking like it was just senselessly tacked on.

The good:







The ugly:

 

[Sage Ages]

The grill works on the LS, the LC, and nothing else.

 

[Turbo]

Unpopular opinion: The Renault Megane II RS could perhaps be the most beautiful European hot hatches ever made.





Even in a non-RS trim, it still looks decent.

 

[SiriusR]

I wonder if the rear window has been inspired by Mazda Carol indeed or if that's just a coincidence. Regardless, this rear window design makes me like Megane hatchback's rear end looks more than I normally like hatchbacks' rear ends (which I more often than not don't like at all)

Still, I'd much rather take any Megane in a CC flavor,

 

[TheCracker]

I wonder if the rear window has been inspired by Mazda Carol indeed or if that's just a coincidence.

It's more likely to have been inspired by the Citroen Ami or Ford Anglia (or a whole bunch of 50's american cars, most notably Studebakers) who all had wrongways slanting rear windows long before the Mazda.

 

[Volksauto]

I wonder if the rear window has been inspired by Mazda Carol indeed or if that's just a coincidence. Regardless, this rear window design makes me like Megane hatchback's rear end looks more than I normally like hatchbacks' rear ends (which I more often than not don't like at all)

Still, I'd much rather take any Megane in a CC flavor,

It's more likely to have been inspired by the Citroen Ami or Ford Anglia (or a whole bunch of 50's american cars, most notably Studebakers) who all had wrongways slanting rear windows long before the Mazda.

The cliff cut design was meant to increase the size of the trunk in the car. However in this application on a hatchback kind of defeats it's own purpose. I think the verticle rear window on the Megane hurts the luggage space in the luggage area.

 

[SiriusR]

It's more likely to have been inspired by the Citroen Ami or Ford Anglia (or a whole bunch of 50's american cars, most notably Studebakers) who all had wrongways slanting rear windows long before the Mazda.

Thanks for correcting me. Out of all the cars with wrongways slanting rear windows, I only remembered the Mazda because, well, Gran Turismo.

 

[TheNuvolari]

I do think the first gen Prius is an averagely good looking car.

 

[Volksauto]

Ok, so some of my friends and I were arguing about the crash test performed a decade ago by the IIHS with the 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu impacting head-on at 40 MPH. They think (along with many others on the internet) the test was rigged and that the Bel Air had no engine which allowed it to get demolished which I know is not true. The IIHS did say the Bel Air had a straight-six in it but there's no photos of the car's engine prior to the test. However, during the impact, there is clearly evidence to show that, YES, there was indeed an engine in the '59.
I took this screenshot and circled what is clearly an oil bath air cleaner. In the video, you can clearly see it fly out from under the hood of the car.

So in my "opinion," the Malibu won the test because it is much better and safer design. Case closed.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Yup, I had to watch that same video when going to driving school.