Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To some of us a vehicle is more than an appliance and more of an extension of ones personality. For me, when I purchase a vehicle it has to look good before I start checking of my must have list. {snip}
Yes, you're hardly the only one who is like that, but I've still always found it silly, always will and will always say as such. It isn't just in cars either, I've heard of people dismissing smartphones, cameras and even computers based solely on "gosh that thing's ugly." I found it especially silly when, for instance, Apple designed the iMac to be clear and green etc to "look different" but in purely practical terms it made no sense because that design meant you couldn't upgrade it. (People don't seem to upgrade PCs as much these days vs just getting another one, but back then upgrade-ability was a big deal.) You see that now also with how there's this push for a phone to be "seamless" (not have any gaps on the edges) because it supposedly makes it more "slick" but what it also does it prevent you from being able to add a microSD card. Again, being so big on looks at the expense of functionality. It's silly to me.
But then, I like Velcro shoes, so there you have it. (I don't care that they look dorky supposedly, I hate dealing with shoestrings, absolutely hate it.)
Not me. To me, looks shouldn't supersede practical aspects, they should work in unison with it--as the saying goes, "form follows function"--or else it should be all about looks and not about practicality at all. I dislike those "jack of all trades, master of none" compromises. Then again, ironically enough, perhaps practicality sort of explains the SUVs popularity in a way--yes a sports car is better looking (I don't care what anybody says, there's no way an SUV is as pretty as a sports car) but you can't get much cargo in it. Then again, if you want something that can corner well, a sports car beats anything else hands down. Just be prepared to not get much in it.
I don't care what a vehicle looks like, it's not a woman in a bikini and if fashion were what I was worried about I say why not go all the way and get a sports car which actually HAS some looks to it?
A lot of vehicles have good looks, not just sports cars, and yes, looks ARE important. I'd rather look at something I LIKE rather than an ugly POS, just to make certain internet people happy. One of the main reasons I bought my BMW 740i was it's looks. I love the way they look, with a lot of road presence. If cars weren't fashion, then car shows and cars & coffee events wouldn't exist, styling studios would be out of business, as would accessory companies, and only ugly, practical cars would sell.
Quote:
If practicality is the priority, go all the way. The only logical reason for large truck-ish SUVs (as in something like a Tahoe) instead of a minivan is if you really do go off-roading.
Or towing. My Suburban tows 12,000 lbs and carries more people in comfort than the average pickup truck, and still has the ability to carry 4x8 sheets of plywood/sheetrock, or large beds in the back.
Quote:
Something about those large SUVs seems to turn a lot of people into bullies, and I love to see them get theirs.
Most of the people that turn into bullies are the people in cars that think that SUVs should not exist, and so drive like morons around them.
I don't buy base on a fad. I also don't hold it against others who buy these vehicles for a valid need. However, for some it's a status symbol, a fashion trend, a "keeping up with the Jones", to feel big and powerful, or to overcome the fear of being injured or killed in a crash. Each person must be honest about why they picked a vehicle like this when they never go off road, never tow, and never use it's interior capacity.
A lot of vehicles have good looks, not just sports cars, and yes, looks ARE important. I'd rather look at something I LIKE rather than an ugly POS, just to make certain internet people happy. One of the main reasons I bought my BMW 740i was {its (not it's} looks. I love the way they look, with a lot of road presence. If cars weren't fashion, then car shows and cars & coffee events wouldn't exist, styling studios would be out of business, as would accessory companies, and only ugly, practical cars would sell.
Yes, other cars have good looks, and looks are subjective, but to me in terms of the BEST looking vehicle, it's always the sporty cars and cars with sporty aspirations like the Porsche sports cars and, yes BMW 7-series cars of the world which have the BEST looks. Regardless, to me, practical doesn't have to mean ugly (simply not STYLISH), and if a vehicle is very handy due to its sheer practicality, who cares if it's not a woman in a bikini? If this means car styling firm go out of business, that's fine by me. Let them be interior decorators or fashion-house gurus or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38
Most of the people that turn into bullies are the people in cars that think that SUVs should not exist, and so drive like morons around them.
Uh, not based on what I see. What I see more times than I can count is a jerk riding 2 inches from my bumper while I'm already going 5-10 mph over the speed limit and I am NOT doing this on the left lane of the freeway blocking this person. They just have a hot poker iron up their posterior to where going anything less than 100 is not enough for them, and they think they have to tailgate everyone around them not going 100 like they wish to do. We're not talking about someone who's stuck behind an old lady in a Buick going BELOW the speed limit. 9 times out of 10, that tailgater--yes, they're in a large SUV, almost every single time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM
I don't buy based on a fad. I also don't hold it against others who buy these vehicles for a valid need. However, for some it's a status symbol, a fashion trend, a "keeping up with the Jones", to feel big and powerful, or to overcome the fear of being injured or killed in a crash. Each person must be honest about why they picked a vehicle like this when they never go off road, never tow, and never use its interior capacity.
Bingo. Spending $40,000 on a car based on its looks just always seemed silly to me. Now, granted, they have the right to do this, it's their money and they can do what they want with it. Still, we are free to debate the silliness of such as we perceive it. That's why I always thought, unless you're doing hard-core towing or going off-road, what's the use in an SUV instead of a minivan, especially when the SUV often costs more owing to its perceived "coolness?" Nothing beats a minivan in how they can hold lots of people or cargo due to the way the seats can be removed altogether vs just folded down, the way sliding doors make it easier to deal with in a crowded parking lot and the way (compared to a largeish SUV vs the "crossover" ones) they're easier to get into and out of since they're not jacked up as high.
In the same way, I disliked how in the realm of small cars for a long time trunk-based models outsold hatchback models simply because people apparently liked the LOOKS of a trunk-based car more than a hatchback. A lot of times they'd drop the hatchback model altogether and you HAD to get such a car with a trunk, because everyone else collectively had said looks were more important, and it stunk. That seems to be changing, though, as I see models like the Honda Fit quite often lately.
One thing I hate is to see someone driving a huge SUV whose kids are grown, grandkids are far away, just the one person driving it all around town, to the store, post office, etc. Why? Just seems wasteful to me.
One day when your knees/hips/back reach their expiration date, try getting in and out of a low slung car and you will understand.
Yes, other cars have good looks, and looks are subjective, but to me in terms of the BEST looking vehicle, it's always the sporty cars and cars with sporty aspirations like the Porsche sports cars and, yes BMW 7-series cars of the world which have the BEST looks. Regardless, to me, practical doesn't have to mean ugly (simply not STYLISH), and if a vehicle is very handy due to its sheer practicality, who cares if it's not a woman in a bikini? If this means car styling firm go out of business, that's fine by me. Let them be interior decorators or fashion-house gurus or whatever.
Looks are important in everything. As a graphic designer/artist I see this in everything from cars to industrial products to simple things like fonts. Comic sans can legibly get the message across as well as any other font but it looks like crap and should not be used in a professional setting. As a custom car builder for years, I've built cars who's sole purpose was to look good. Car companies (and other companies) have styling departments for a reason. You're an outlier in this thought and should understand that you're the one that's silly not taking this into account.
Quote:
Uh, not based on what I see.
That's because you're not the one driving the SUV. As an SUV driver, I see it all the time.
Quote:
Bingo. Spending $40,000 on a car based on its looks just always seemed silly to me.
The more you spend on a car the better looking it SHOULD be. I've built cars for that sort of money that have looks as their sole purpose. Kinetic sculpture. But you probably think that spending money on ANY artwork or sculpture is silly, as it does not thing but look good to it's owner. Just remember, you're the outlier here.
I always love the argument that ones driving an SUV aren't practical because they can't fit 7 people like in a mini van. You know the deal. Perhaps if they tow or drive off road but the vast majority don't so they should be practical and drive a mini van _ B.A.R.F.
I bet the vast majority who have a mini van also don't always drive around with 7 people in them now do they? So, in that case, to me, a vehicle that comfortably seats 2 to 4 is the norm and it sure is nice to have extra room in the back. Add the towing capability, weight carrying capacity and optional real 4 wheel drive systems and SUV's (at least based on truck models) are the more practical vehicle. Add in the comfort and room for the driver and front passenger of a 1/2 ton based truck model and it seals the deal. The looks even finalize it. At least for the older ones (give me the styling of the big 78/79 bronco over practicaly any thing made------with the exception of the 57 Chevy).
Now if you carry around a bunch of screaming kids with a couple in car seats, true a mini van is practical, at least if it has sliding door access on both sides! But for anything else they lose practicality! I'll go with the full sized SUV!
They not only have many SUVs but crazy luxury and performance variants
BMW X5 M, X6 M and MB has AMGs, Audi, Porsche, Range Rover...etc.
This is crazy!!!
Do you think that can be sustained??
Seriously...have you been living under a rock? These vehicles have been out for YEARS. For the record, most of them are cross-overs but yes, the SUV is the modern equivalent of the Station Wagon...but without the stigma of driving a station wagon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(I don't care that they look dorky supposedly, I hate dealing with shoestrings, absolutely hate it.)
