What cars, in your view, are pointless?

  • Thread starter Turbo
  • 251 comments
  • 18,093 views
I'm arguing it should have a cage because Dodge is marketing it based on its performance on the perfect surface of a drag strip it's not allowed to race on because it doesn't have a cage.
 
No, that isn't what you were arguing. It's merely the argument you are trying to make stick now that "They could have stuck one behind the front seats" and "The Ford GT has one!" have been exhausted.
 
A Demon is allowed on drag strips, it's just not allowed to do the 9sec runs it is capable of on NHRA-sanctioned strips because legally they require a roll cage if you're going that quick.
 
I was using the GT as an example of the fact that a cage can be done legally in a road car, so there's no excuse for the Demon to not have one.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/why-dodge-will-never-offer-factory-roll-cage-in-srt-demon/

You have a company that is giving their car insane performance and literally shouting to the world what it can do, and their, what, CEO? is basically saying, "We can either do our customers right and make it safe and legal to perform as advertised, or potentially let those customers kill themselves just so we can more easily turn a profit and be king in the numbers game. The latter made more sense."

As Kuniskis notes, "...you're going to be crash-testing multiple cars, because now you're going to change all the impact [performance], all the crumple zones in the car. So you're going to have to reconfigure the way the airbags work, the way the supplemental airbags work, the way the seatbelt tensioners work."

All of that time, effort and money, for a 3,300-unit, one-year model could never make financial sense. "You're talking about a humongous undertaking for a very, very, very small population of the people who know that going in, and can do that on their own," he says.

Because Average Joe is going to know how to reconfigure the impact performance, crumple zones, airbags, and seatbelt tensioners. And get it done post-purchase for cheaper than what it would have cost Dodge. Who goes to a drag strip and only drives their car eight-tenths? Not to mention, how many people are going to refrain from going fast just because someone told them "you can't do that"? Are track officials - who undoubtedly know all about this car - going to allow a cage-less Demon on their track knowing it's illegal right off the bat? I would think the 3,300 people in the world who are big enough Mopar fanatics to buy one wouldn't be turned off by a price hike.

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0115-204293/1971-dodge-hemi-challenger-rt/ - estimated to go for $450,000 - $550,000
https://www.mecum.com/lots/SC0513-154218/1971-dodge-challenger/ - estimated to go for $115,000 - $145,000
https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0117-269459/1971-dodge-hemi-challenger-rt/ - estimated to go for $750,000 - $850,000
https://www.mecum.com/lots/SC0515-214467/1971-dodge-challenger-rt/ - estimated to go for $125,000 - $150,000
http://robsteinertclassiccars.com/the-top-5-most-expensive-muscle-cars-sold-at-auctions/ - three Hemi Cudas sold for $2-3.5 million

...and on and on and on throughout the history of high-dollar auction sales.

The Demon is a pretty special model. As pointless as it is, I still think it's awesome even though clearly hate it at the same time.
 
Because Average Joe is going to know how to reconfigure the impact performance, crumple zones, airbags, and seatbelt tensioners. And get it done post-purchase for cheaper than what it would have cost Dodge.

No, it's because a private individual who's going to fit a roll-cage to their Dodge isn't going to have to submit the car to the same legal safety tests that Dodge is. If I fitted a roll-cage I likely wouldn't be worrying about tensioning, airbag performance parameters and the like. If I was fitting the roll-cage to 30,000 production cars then I'd have to worry about it by law, and I'd have to be able to prove that before a judge when 87 year old Ethel Finkelstein sues me for breaking her hip in a 12 mph shunt.

I'm arguing it should have a cage because Dodge is marketing it based on its performance on the perfect surface of a drag strip it's not allowed to race on because it doesn't have a cage.

It is though.
 
I was using the GT as an example of the fact that a cage can be done legally in a road car, so there's no excuse for the Demon to not have one.

Which simply means you still don't actually understand why the Ford GT is irrelevant to bring up. Ford designed the GT around the cage. It is embedded in the carbon fiber monocoque for the car. It is a structural element of the chassis. They can "build it into the trim" because the cage is what the trim attaches to. Ford making the roof rails of their carbon fiber homologation special a certified roll cage is in no way comparable to when Porsche pops a cage in a GT3 RS it sells in Europe that is fully visible, nevermind the magic Dodge would have had to do to hide a cage capable of supporting a fat ass 5 meter long car behind some A-Pillar panels.


If Billy Bob wants to buy his Challenger and take it to an NHRA track to set recorded times, he'll have to probably have a cage installed. If Billy Bob wants to buy his Challenger and take it to any other drag strip in the country, he won't. If Billy Bob wants to buy his Challenger and just drive it around town like a putz, he certainly won't. If Billy Bob decides to pop in a cage anyway to show off during his beer run and bumps a shopping cart in the parking lot and breaks his skull on it, then that ceases to be Chrysler's problem like it would if they threw a roll cage in the thing from the factoy.
 
t0kiw55v.jpg


What was the point of this, again?
 
Front wheel drive mid-sized sedans turned into coupes. For example, the Accord, Altima, and Camry Solara.
17_accord_coupe_014.jpg

2013_nissan_altima_coupe_25-s_fq_oem_1_1280.jpg

1200px-2007-Toyota-Solara-SE.jpg

Although, the Solara at least came as a convertible. So there was somewhat of a market for it.
 
This may cause some ruffled feathers...

Dodge Viper.

"Hey, let's spend all this time and money making a nearly 10-liter V10 engine that only makes 450-ish horsepower!"
 
Front wheel drive mid-sized sedans turned into coupes. For example, the Accord, Altima, and Camry Solara.
17_accord_coupe_014.jpg

2013_nissan_altima_coupe_25-s_fq_oem_1_1280.jpg

1200px-2007-Toyota-Solara-SE.jpg

Although, the Solara at least came as a convertible. So there was somewhat of a market for it.
That trend was pretty popular back in the '80s and '90s; GM had a coupe version for basically every sedan it offered. Thankfully the trend has died out, somewhat.
 
This may cause some ruffled feathers...

Dodge Viper.

"Hey, let's spend all this time and money making a nearly 10-liter V10 engine that only makes 450-ish horsepower!"

Lamborghini took a Chrysler LA engine an revamped it so it's not like it wasn't designed well.
 
Front wheel drive mid-sized sedans turned into coupes. For example, the Accord, Altima, and Camry Solara.
17_accord_coupe_014.jpg

2013_nissan_altima_coupe_25-s_fq_oem_1_1280.jpg

1200px-2007-Toyota-Solara-SE.jpg

Although, the Solara at least came as a convertible. So there was somewhat of a market for it.

I always felt that the AltCoupe and the Solara were pretty much trying to be a cheap G coupe and SC.
 
Honda had a coupe (or hatchback in the 80s) version of the Accord for every generation of the thing, they pretty much started that segment... And it still sells pretty well, too.
 
Honda had a coupe (or hatchback in the 80s) version of the Accord for every generation of the thing, they pretty much started that segment... And it still sells pretty well, too.

It is pretty much the only one out of that segment that is still alive. There was also the Camry coupe of the 90s, but...no one ever really talks about that. I've only driven an Altima coupe, but I do wonder if there is a real difference in performance over the sedans. They aren't that attractive for being a coupe and I don't see them being worth the sacrifice in practicality over the sedan. I'd gladly just buy a car designed from the start to be a coupe and not a sedan turned into one.
 
Sometimes people want a sporty looking car that doesn't have any worry of reliability concerns or costs over a typical family sedan. It's the last gasp of the segment that collapsed in the early 1990s when those people who looked for those just started buying SUVs instead.


That the Accord coupe is the only one left and still sells pretty decent, when about ten years ago every manufacturer had one, shows how either pointless the market was when ever manufarer had one when people would rather buy a Mustang or BMW; or how much better Honda was at targeting it than Dodge/Mitsubishi/Toyota/Nissan/Chevrolet/etc. Probably both.
 
I've just never found the design of them to be sporty, with most having the sedan front end and an almost completely different rear. It just doesn't go well together. Especially on the Altima and Accord.

I was going to use this as an example, but it probably wouldn't work too well considering the size differences. I was going to say that I'd rather have the last generation of the Toyota Celica over the Solara or a Prelude over an Accord if I wanted a reliable coupe. But...it's basically a compact coupe versus a midsized coupe. So that doesn't work. :scared:
Toyota-Celica_GTS-2003-1600-02.jpg
 
I've just never found the design of them to be sporty, with most having the sedan front end and an almost completely different rear. It just doesn't go well together. Especially on the Altima and Accord.
A closer parallel than the Celica or Prelude would be something like a 4-series in comparison to a 3-series. Or others from the era but over here in Europe would be the 406 and 407 Coupes. The Peugeots were fairly removed in appearance from the 406 saloon I guess, but the concept is pretty much the same as the Accord Coupe or Solara, in offering a sportier version of a regular volume car. The Ford/Mercury Cougar was the same deal compared to the Mondeo/Contour, albeit even further removed in terms of styling.

People do (or did) like them though, so they were far from pointless. Some people just prefer the look of a 2-door car to a 4-door one, but don't want to make compromises on the kind of things that regular Accords or Camrys (or 3-series or 406s) did well. Or basically what @Tornado said above.
 
It is darkly amusing that BMW's naming scheme is so nakedly cynical that they changed the name of it and fiddled with the proportions a bit and figure that that's enough to create a marketing link with the allegedly sportier 6 series range that they just discontinued.
 
imageshandler.jpg
imageshandler (1).jpg


Carpeted bed and a barn door tailgate don't work on a truck.
 
GLC Coupe

2017-GLC-COUPE-CATEGORY-HERO-2-1-D.jpg



GLE Coupe

2017-GLE43-AMG-COUPE-001-CCF-D.jpg



What's the point of this? You buy a SUV for the off-road capability and extra room. But a low roofline completely negates the extra room of a SUV. A coupe is supposed to be sporty, but having a higher center of gravity is inherently not sporty.
 
GLC Coupe

2017-GLC-COUPE-CATEGORY-HERO-2-1-D.jpg



GLE Coupe

2017-GLE43-AMG-COUPE-001-CCF-D.jpg



What's the point of this? You buy a SUV for the off-road capability and extra room. But a low roofline completely negates the extra room of a SUV. A coupe is supposed to be sporty, but having a higher center of gravity is inherently not sporty.

That's crossovers for you...

Personally I don't really see the point of crossovers in general, as in theory you'd think it'd be a good idea to mix the "best of both worlds". Whether it's an SUV and Hatchback, or an SUV and Coupe. But they really don't work at all, plus they all, 9 times out of 10, look really ugly, and those GL's are no different. So a GLE coupe go past me the other day, and I just though why?!
 
That's crossovers for you...

Personally I don't really see the point of crossovers in general, as in theory you'd think it'd be a good idea to mix the "best of both worlds". Whether it's an SUV and Hatchback, or an SUV and Coupe. But they really don't work at all, plus they all, 9 times out of 10, look really ugly, and those GL's are no different. So a GLE coupe go past me the other day, and I just though why?!

Crossovers work because they are easier for a manufacture to make. They don't need to design a new platform since they can use an existing car one. People also like them because they feel more like a car, are more comfortable than a traditional body on frame SUV, get better mileage, and are typically FWD and AWD meaning they are easier to handle by the average driver in adverse weather conditions. They also are a minivan, which I think many people despise now since they aren't "cool" or "hip".

I agree that many crossovers make no sense, the BMW and MB ones posted are great examples of an answer to a question no one asked, but if it means those companies can sell them and bring in more profits then more power to them.
 
Crossovers work because they are easier for a manufacture to make. They don't need to design a new platform since they can use an existing car one. People also like them because they feel more like a car, are more comfortable than a traditional body on frame SUV, get better mileage, and are typically FWD and AWD meaning they are easier to handle by the average driver in adverse weather conditions. They also are a minivan, which I think many people despise now since they aren't "cool" or "hip".

I agree that many crossovers make no sense, the BMW and MB ones posted are great examples of an answer to a question no one asked, but if it means those companies can sell them and bring in more profits then more power to them.

Oh I agree with you there, there's no doubt they sell as a concept, there's plenty of them about on the roads to show that. However, what I don't get is that they don't particularly excel in any given area, as the don't seem to be class leading in either aspect their crossed with; whether it's SUV x Coupe, or SUV x Hatchback etc. Generally the don't seem to be that great off-road like many a "proper" SUV, a-la a Range/Land Rover, and they don't seem to be the most practical either.

But that's just me, and of course the manufacturers making them are not going to car much for what I said, if they sell in the great abundance with which they do :lol:.
 
"Hey, let's spend all this time and money making a nearly 10-liter V10 engine that only makes 450-ish horsepower!"
It wasn't exactly the most technologically advanced engine for the time. Probably wasn't too expensive/difficult to make either.
 
2017 Hyundai Azera


Had a purpose five years ago, but pretty pointless now. Essentially it's an upmarket Sonata, with a different exterior and a more luxurious inside; costs $12k more than a Sonata does. But now that the much better looking and more up-to-date Genesis G80, why is this car still being sold? Especially when it's almost the exact same size as the G80.​
 
Back