Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Nuff said...

I won't even ask if anyone thinks this looks good?
:shock:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I just saw a white on in person like a half hour ago, and to be honest w/u, I think it looks pimp! It kinda reminds me of a Rolls Royce Phantom. But yea its not so bad lookin in person :)
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
NocturnalTSX said:
I just saw a white on in person like a half hour ago, and to be honest w/u, I think it looks pimp! It kinda reminds me of a Rolls Royce Phantom. But yea its not so bad lookin in person :)
Nocturnal, be honest...
Did you just come back from "Happy Hour?" ;)
 

·
, Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,660 Posts
hip said:
Nocturnal, be honest...
Did you just come back from "Happy Hour?" ;)
Been dipping into Grandpa's cough medicine again have we? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
I was fully expecting a pic of an Aztec, but I guess that's cliche...

jcg, who thinks it's not that bad, and did just come back from happy hour ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
I don't like it and it's way too heavy. But I think D-C will sell a ton of them. It's a V8 Hemi sold at a price point where many who are "compensating" can afford it. The front end has that large truck/SUV get-outa-my-way look that appeals to people with anger-management issues. The slit side windows are very Gangsta.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
kiteboy said:
I don't like it and it's way too heavy. But I think D-C will sell a ton of them. It's a V8 Hemi sold at a price point where many who are "compensating" can afford it. The front end has that large truck/SUV get-outa-my-way look that appeals to people with anger-management issues. The slit side windows are very Gangsta.
So what you are saying is, by "compensating" they are sexually inadequate. And the " slit side windows are very Gangsta" means they are schizophrenic and dysfunctional.

Sounds like irrational exuberance or just smoking too much crack cocaine? (the buyers, not you) :tribe:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
hip said:
So what you are saying is, by "compensating" they are sexually inadequate. And the " slit side windows are very Gangsta" means they are schizophrenic and dysfunctional.
Yes to the first point, and the side windows just remind me of some cars from the 30's where the doors were much taller than the windows. The 300 just seems appropriate as a bank robbery getway car with tommy guns stickin' out the windows. :D

I also think the headlights make the car look like it's got bloodshot-baggy eyes.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Too much "Bling-Bling," not enough "Ching-Ching"
 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
1,481 Posts


This is the view I'd expect to see most of the time!

I don't LIKE white instruments. I like big, round instruments with orange arrows and green numbers on a black background, the way that God intended instruments to be.

If Chrysler produced it with a 6-speed manual and sold it for $30k, and if they did something about the instruments, I might find it appealing. Since I like fast wagons, I have to applaud Chrysler for at least trying a "touring" version. Otherwise, if the dynamics of the car are superb, who really cares what it looks like? (The dynamics of the Aztec are as bad as the styling.)

 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
bob shiftright said:


Otherwise, if the dynamics of the car are superb, who really cares what it looks like? (The dynamics of the Aztec are as bad as the styling.)

Actually I heard the Aztec had good dynamics as it was based on the same GM platform as their minivans.

Be careful what you say. Does this mean if GM or any company produced the best handling, best riding and best overall performing car you ever drove for ~$30K...

You'd buy it even if it looked butt ugly...? :surprised
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
bob shiftright said:
.....if the dynamics of the car are superb, who really cares what it looks like?.....
Thank you for asking that. :D

This gets into automotive science as well as spirituality. :jeffy:

The first part, Bob knows a lot more than I do. And he probably knows more about the second part too. But that's not going to stop me. :D

First of all, I would think the way a car looks tells you something about how it performs -- in part because the car's exterior affects the performance, and in part because presumably the company's various personnel were at least somewhat on the same page and so the car's design correlates with how it performs. I would think these things are involved in at least some aspects of the design.

And about the other part, how can we not be affected by how it looks? Driving has a lot to do with feeling, and doesn't our "feeling" about driving a car have to have some basis in how it looks? In fact, our feeling about anything has something to do with how it looks.

But I think Bob knew all that.
 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
larchmont said:


The first part, Bob knows a lot more than I do.
I don't know anything at all. But I actually stayed next-door to a Holiday Inn TWICE last week!

Off hand, I can think of a number of cars that had superb dynamics and marginal styling (at best) that went on to become "Classics". The Saab 96, "Adenauer" Mercedes 300, BMW 2002, Triumph TR3, Austin Healey Mark-1 Sprite....

I can also think of quite a few cars that were absolutely beautiful but complete dogs....from Jaguar, Alfa Romeo, Lancia and Fiat (pick your model and vintage).

Styling may help in the sales department. But God only knows what the buying public will consider attractive at any given time. Consider the Hummer H-1, which is a disaster from both a styling and dynamic standpoint, yet 1/2 of America seems to yearn to put one in their driveway.....

 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
hip said:
Actually I heard the Aztec had good dynamics as it was based on the same GM platform as their minivans.

Be careful what you say. Does this mean if GM or any company produced the best handling, best riding and best overall performing car you ever drove for ~$30K...

You'd buy it even if it looked butt ugly...? :surprised
Not to start a debate about the dynamics of the Pontiac Aztec vs. the Porsche Carrera, but based on objective testing, Consumer Reports ranks the Aztec in next-to-last place for small SUVs.

Would I consider a butt-ugly car? Sure. Absolutely. I buy a car to drive. Most of what I expect to see of my car is over the instruments.

If something doesn't make a car go faster, turn sharper, stop quicker or last longer, it's superfluous.

If Hyundai or Daewoo built and styled a car with exactly the same dynamics as a BMW M5 and sold it for their usual cut-rate price, I'd buy it in a nanosecond! (Of course, that's unlikely to happen.)

BMW itself may be a great example, I've never thought much of their styling, and the current crop of Chris Bangle designs is anything but pleasant, IMO. But the superb dynamics remain. (Well, mostly. The iDrive seems to drive everybody bonkers. But Bangle didn't have much to do with that, did he?)



Doors are highly overrated and only add unnecessary weight to a car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
bob shiftright said:
Would I consider a butt-ugly car? Sure. Absolutely. I buy a car to drive. Most of what I expect to see of my car is over the instruments.
In this competitive marketplace, there are usually alternatives with similar driving dynamics in most categories. I also think performance is the first priority, but if choosing between cars of simliar performance, I'd choose the better looking one.

That being said, the 300C and Magnum stand alone in the $30k, RWD, V8 sedan segment, at least for now.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
bob shiftright said:
.....Off hand, I can think of a number of cars that had superb dynamics and marginal styling (at best) that went on to become "Classics". The Saab 96, "Adenauer" Mercedes 300, BMW 2002.....
I just don't know about those other cars, but I disagree about the BMW 2002.
I find it odd that you give the 2002 as an example, because to me it was one of the most remarkable styling successes of the era -- in fact, I mentioned it on the "Cars that made you go wow" thread. I guess it's that we're talking about slightly different things when it comes to "styling."

I thought that the BMW 2002 (and its predecessors) -- AT THE TIME, which is what counts -- was a very striking-looking car; and not only that, but its look conveyed something about what kind of car it was; and not only that, but what it conveyed was totally accurate -- and so it all added up to a remarkable package. To me, that's great styling. In a nutshell, it conveyed compact power. Plus efficiency, solidity, quality, and (yes) reasonable economy, all in such an understated way which seemed to say, "I don't have to shout." But I guess that to a lot of people it was just nondescript.

I think it was one of the best car designs in history.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Hey Bob,

Just one question...

If styling wasn't important to you and all you cared about is good dynamics and the view from the driver's seat, then why didn't you just get the Accord? :confused:
 

·
The Voice of Reason
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
hip said:
Hey Bob,

Just one question...

If styling wasn't important to you and all you cared about is good dynamics and the view from the driver's seat, then why didn't you just get the Accord? :confused:
I certainly considered the Accord V6 sedan. In fact, I still may buy an Accord for the family motor pool, ie. for my daughter

I considered the Accord Coupe, but knew I'd be annoyed by the lack of rear doors.

Honda does not sell the Accord V6 sedan in the US with the 6-speed manual transmission. If they did and at that price it would be a no-brainer for me. I knew I'd be annoyed by the AT. Every day for maybe the next 350,000 miles which is what my tightwad brother-in-law has on his '83 Accord. (I even considered buying a wrecked 6-speed coupe and grafting the 6-speed transmission onto a V6 sedan! It's all bolt-in, BTW.) I also considered the base 160HP 4 and the 5-speed but that Accord is too much of a slug, at least after 236HP.

The TSX also comes with HIDs, stability control, 17" wheels, wider tires, bigger brakes and a strut tower brace, all of which I'd either need to add or would be impossible to add to the Accord.

Except at the Stoplight Grand Prix, I consider the TSX dynamically superior to the Accord V6 sedan. Which isn't a bad car, either.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top