What is the Most Overrated Car Of All Time?

mazdaman
Well this is my opinion to this just like your entitled to yours and also because of how many cars the rotary beats.
Click to expand...

:odd: That's all well and good but over rated cars typically aren't ones you like or ones you think are good. Over rated cars typically mean that people think more of car then they actually are.
 
mazdaman
Mines would be the Mazda Rx-7 3rd gen

1.Because at the time and up to now the car had a excellent handling.
Also it had 280hp with a twin turbo system som came with 5-6speed trannys.
It was also known for giving the Skylines,Nsx and supras competition.

2.Even to this day for a car thats 14 years old the car is still loved by many car enthusiasts.
To buy i think it went for some where to $10,000-$20,000.


Is this better?
Click to expand...

This isn't "What is a good car". This is "What is the most overrated car". That's a car that ISN'T GOOD, but people think it is.

Your post demonstrates that you like the RX-7. Great. Your feelings for the RX-7 are not relevant to the thread.
 
mazdaman
Oh ok.But Famine is'nt that your opinion?
Click to expand...

Including the thread title and first post, this would be the fourth time that this concept has passed you by. I'm going to explain this as patiently as I can on the understanding that if I have to do it again I will be at the limits of my patience and you are in no position to be testing those limits.

This thread is not about cars that you like.

I'll repeat:

This thread is not about cars that you like.

This thread is about cars which are OVERRATED - cars which have a large fanbase due to an belief that they are very good cars, when the reality is that they are either not very good or not as good as the fanbase would have you believe.

So you posting up that the RX-7 is great and the reasons why you like it is not relevant to the thread - unless, that is, you believe that it is actually a crap car, which is why you are nominating it in this thread. However, I don't think this is the case and you seem to have just not grasped the concept that it's not for cars that you like.


Cars you shouldn't post: Cars you like; Cars which everyone knows suck.
Cars you should post: Cars other people like but which, really, you don't think are all that great.
 
Every Ferrari is overated. But for me the Mclaren F1. It doesn't look that good. It doesn't go that fast (i'm gonna be pumped full of lead for saying that) and It isn't that cool.
 
R390GT1'97
Every Ferrari is overated. But for me the Mclaren F1. It doesn't look that good. It doesn't go that fast (i'm gonna be pumped full of lead for saying that) and It isn't that cool.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 0-60 in 2.8 and 231mph isn't fast at all. :rolleyes:
 
PureAwesomeness
I would nominate the VW Beetle and the Citroen 2CV as overrated cars. Anyone with me?
Click to expand...

They were both massively influential cars. They might not stand up to the small compact cars of today, but then again, would we even have small 'compacts' today if it wasn't for them?
 
Jim Prower
It's top speed record held for...what, a decade or so?
Click to expand...

And even in its "stock" form (where top speed is rev limited), it's capable of over 230 mph... which still makes it the fastest of its time and keeps it within the top five today... not bad for an old supercar.

-

And doesn't look good? I struggle to find a comparable supercar of the time period that actually looked better... the F40 was all late 80's chunky... the Jaguar had the overhangs (and girth) of Moby Dick and the F50 that followed was just...
 
R390GT1'97
Every Ferrari is overated. But for me the Mclaren F1. It doesn't look that good. It doesn't go that fast (i'm gonna be pumped full of lead for saying that) and It isn't that cool.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious or just trolling?

I'm not personally a fan of the standard F1 styling wise (to me, it's a little bland for a Supercar), and from what I've read over the years it's an extremely hard car to get the best out of due to very heavy, unassisted steering and weak brakes.

But it's a true landmark car in so many ways and it held its place at the top of the Supercar foodchain for a decade or more... in the end, it cost VW 100's of millions of Euro's to build something that could go faster... and they had to give the Veyron 1,000bhp to do it.
 
PureAwesomeness
I would nominate the VW Beetle and the Citroen 2CV as overrated cars. Anyone with me?
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned somewhere else in this thread (here, in fact) that you could consider the VW Beetle overrated, though I was only being semi-serious. But I do see where you're coming from. Neither car is actually very good judged by modern standards and both lasted a lot longer than they usually would have if people were buying them simply on objective qualities.

VW tried to replace the Beetle with both the Golf then the Polo and yet the Beetle was still being produced, and Citroen tried the same by releasing the Dyane, Visa and AX, and yet the 2CV was still being made and sold right up until 1990 when the AX had already been around a year or two.

This suggests that they were selling literally on the back of their styling and image, which are quite unique compared to the cars that tried to replace them. As they weren't as good as the more modern cars, this is good grounds that they're overrated.

However, one could argue that they were both incredibly significant in the history of the motor car - and one would be right. Both fulfilled their original design briefs absolutely perfectly and were instrumental in getting countries mobilised after the war. Both are also very reliable, mainly due to their simplicity. I'm sure I remember hearing that Citroen once had a test driver run a 2CV for 24 hours (could have been more) at maximum revs stopping only for fuel, and it didn't miss a beat. Reliability is certainly a desirable quality for a "peoples' car".

Both were well packaged. Both fit a family of four without too much trouble. Sure, it's not exciting stuff, but then neither was designed to be exciting, they were both designed to serve the minimum purpose that a car is required for. A bit like the Tata Nano does in India today.

Are they overrated then? It's very difficult to say. There are so many pros and cons to both.
 
niky
And doesn't look good? I struggle to find a comparable supercar of the time period that actually looked better... the F40 was all late 80's chunky... the Jaguar had the overhangs (and girth) of Moby Dick and the F50 that followed was just...
Click to expand...

There are only two supercars I actually prefer the looks of to the McLaren F1 from the 90s. And one is a prototype that they ditched at the last second.

The Italdesign/Lamborghini Cala and Isdera Commendatore 112i.
 
I'd forgotten about the Cala concept. At the time I absolutely loved it, but I've just had a look at it again now and it does nothing for me, it looks very oddly proportioned and some of the typical 90s styling details don't work well at all, and date it very badly. I think both the Murcielago and Gallardo are much more successful designs.
 
The OP is crazy. The NSX if at all is under-rated. The new GT-R is over-rated, like its the best and cheapest and best quality car ever. Oh also, imprezas and EVOs are very over-rated by their usual owners, and here, most BMWs are too
 
motortrend
The OP is crazy. The NSX if at all is under-rated. The new GT-R is over-rated, like its the best and cheapest and best quality car ever. Oh also, imprezas and EVOs are very over-rated by their usual owners, and here, most BMWs are too
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up for all of us. Who needs opinions when we have you to tell us the truth?
 
sorry, wasnt trying to make it seem that way. I din't say it was the truth, i just think that wayl. I think truth is the same as opinion and we each have our own truth, but that is just my opinion, and you can think whatever you like. I wasnt trying to make it seem like i was right, thats just what I think. it depends on how you read it
 
Truth is this:

The Nissan GT-R is faster than many sportscars with the same amount of power or more around many racetracks, despite weighing as much as a bus. And it's only after Lotus finished development on the GT-R at the Nurb and Nissan published its headline laptimes that Porsche, Chevrolet and Dodge came up with sportscars that are comprehensively quicker than the standard GT-R around most racetracks. And these cars all cost more than the GT-R. (Note: standard... we don't know how the new V-Specs compare yet).

Opinon is this:

"The GT-R is over-rated."

"The GT-R is ugly." (I agree with this one... but it's still a subjective opinion)

Big difference.
 
The GT-R is over rated though, so many people think it's a slightly scaled down version of god. It's good, yes, but it's not the be all to end all with cars.
 
Murcie_LP640
There are only two supercars I actually prefer the looks of to the McLaren F1 from the 90s. And one is a prototype that they ditched at the last second.

The Italdesign/Lamborghini Cala and Isdera Commendatore 112i.
Click to expand...

For the sake of those who don't know, here's probably the most influential supercar design since the 70s:

1986%20Chevrolet%20Corvette%20Indy%20Concept.jpg


'86 Corvette Indy concept.
 
niky
And these cars all cost more than the GT-R. (Note: standard... we don't know how the new V-Specs compare yet).
Click to expand...

The sticker on the car that was at the auto show this past weekend was a little over $88K. That is no-longer the value I once thought it was. Sure, the updated GT-R is a little faster than the original one, but yeah. That's a full $16K over the price of a Z06, its closest competitor in that price segment.
 
If I'm not mistaken you could add boost to a Z06 for less than 16k though... Add a nice set of tires and the GT-R is pretty well dead.
 
Z06+Boost = warranty voided.

Once you start counting modified cars, you can justify stuff like buying a Lancer Evolution, adding lots of brakes, lots of tire and boosting the engine to 600 bhp.
 

Latest Posts

Back