So as I was riding along in my mother's Audi TT 3.2 Quattro I noticed everyone was staring at us, even with an M5 E60 in the lane right next to us (Which I happened to drooling over ), and even though there was a 5L V10 4-door supercar right there, everyone was looking at the not-so-fast, flashy, sub-supercar TT.

And that got me thinking about the looks of cars. Now, surly we all know that the BMW M5 E60 might be one of the ugliest things ever to set foot (err... tire) on this planet, it is one of the best, as well as one of the biggest engineering marvels. Yet the designers couldn't be fucked to make it look good. And for a long while I thought that it was just because they were either

A.) Lazy
or
B.) Out of money

But then I thought, "What if they did this on purpose?" "What if they aren't supposed to be pretty, for the purpose of being cool?" Any car that's new, flashy, exciting, and has lots of angles and sudden changes is a car that people will usually buy to show off. Let's face it, it's the truth. And I'm not talking about muscle cars, those will always be cool no matter what, I'm talking things like the Mercedes SLK-280. It's a piece of steaming shit, I know, I've been in one. It's underpowered, and it feels loose in the bends. However, the looks say otherwise.

So, I've come to the conclusion that car manufacturers don't care if a car is ugly if it's supposed to be a car. They design it to be flashy and gaudy (gawdy?) if they want to sell them by the masses, but not necessarily as a car. Things like the Audi TT, the Corvette (Well, not the Z06 or whatever that new one is, just the base model) and, I think most of all, the Ford Mustang. It used to be a car that anyone who was cool owned, but now the people who own them are middle aged men/women who are trying to look cooler than they are.

Let's look at the Volkswagen Jetta, or the Honda Civic (Although that's taking a rapid slide towards where the Mustang is classified in my book), or the Mazda B-Series. Why do I include these cars? Let's look over it.

The Jetta. It's luxurious, reliable, decently quick (If you don't get the shitty 4-cyl), and it gets decent mileage. Let's think now, it's not very pretty. I mean, you could live with it, but let's be honest, it isn't a beauty. But it does what a car is supposed to do, which is take people and things where they're supposed to go in a relatively efficient and quick way.

Now let's look at the Honda Civic. It does the exact same thing as the Jetta, it's pretty much the same, although it's on a rapid slope to becoming a shitty marketing icon like the Mustang is.

And now the Mazda B-Series. I should start off by saying that I usually hate pickup trucks. Well, I don't hate them, I hate the people that buy them as big as they can so that have a larger pen()r. Now that's a shitty waste. A Ford F250 for the daily commute to work? Please. Now the Mazda B-series is a pickup for someone who actually needs a pickup. It's not huge, it's not stupidly flared, it's just a good solid pickup truck, doing what it's supposed to do.

This has somewhat flared from my original topic, so I guess what I'm trying to say is that a car that's not gaudy and flashy and stupid is a true car, something that people buy as a car, and not as an extension of their penises. I'm not saying that the ONLY cars that aren't like this are good daily commuters like the VW golf, things such as the M5 (as was mentioned before) is a car that just wants to be good at what it does, and not be all flash and no substince.

Thoughts?

Manufacturers do what they do to make more money.

The truth or falseness of everything you have just said can be derived from this statement.

Here are some additional pieces of information that may be useful:

1) Manufacturers will make a worse product from a practical point of view, if it increases sales. Prime example: Rear sway bars added only because customers expect to see them on sporty cars.

2) Manufacturers will advertise things that do not matter, if they can convince the customer that it does.

3) Manufacturers do occasionally screw up.

4) But usually they just want you to talk about them some more.

5) They want the $50 in your pocket. They will do whatever it takes to get it.

6) You do not need to actually make a better product, you need only convince the customer it is a better product.

This...

Generally, but generalisations aren't rules. Sometimes manufacturers like to take (what appear to be enormous) risks instead of playing it safe following the market evolution of vehicles, and make a big splash. In reality these risks can still be substantial, such as losing a hell of a lot of money, but they still like to research the market to make sure they're not about to take a risk that will send them bankrupt. There are many examples of manufacturers taking the risks, and the results going either way...


..British Leyland's experience down here with the P76 is a good example of how playing it safe can still be risky in itself.


Back to the front: I want to read more of your thoughts, Midnight.

P.S. Duck-mud: What's with all the spaces between lines, do you format your posts in MS.txt too?

Actually I think it in my head as I type it out, and I thought it with pauses between each post, so that came out as blank spaces.

I agree with much of this.

Expecially the sudden body shape changes in modern cars, like sharp angles then a curve, not a fan.

I do that too.

Sub-sports car, you mean.
The average person cant tell ther difference between a 525i and an M5. I personally think the e60 M5 is a badass motherfucker.
http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2008/01/G-Power%20Hurricane%20BMW%20M5.jpg
Is it hard to understand not every car was built for utmost performance? There still are chick cars, and there most definitely are underpowered siblings. Think 325i vs M3, but less extreme.
Again, looks are subjective of taste, whats ugly as sin to you is fucking sexy to someone else. Case in point, women. Some guys go for just one type and think the others are all fugly. Same exact type of thinking.
Car manufacturers, especially BMW, like advertising companies, try to get their brand stuck in your head. Iconic designs, top performance figures (and the M5 has plenty of those), and a history make it all the easier to sell someone an M5. Its not about who owns the car that looks cool, I think it's their driving that would make it cool/respectable. Regardless, I teach one of the guys you mentioned, hes 45 and has a C5, and cant drive worth a fuck. He also bitches about gas milage. Smart guy. You want to talk about ugly? Lets talk Chevy Beat. However, go to a 16 year old girl whos getting her first car and shell think its "OMG SO CUTE!1" and daddy will buy her one. Same thing goes for the SLK-280, but the Mercedes badge helps sell it and the owners are generally loaded with cash.
The good engine on the Jetta has always been the 4cyl. 16valve, 2.0t, 1.8t, the new 2.0t, the only generation with a shitty 4 banger was mine. Stock Jettas come with 170 hp 2.5l five cylinders now, and you can opt for the 2.0fsi or whatnot if you get a GLI.
When an automotive manufacturer gets a following and then tries to change its cars for that following is when shit turns bad, usually.
Right.
The m5 on its own isnt supposed to be a hot car. It's supposed to stand next to your neighbors 530i and make you feel superior.

You asked thoughts, so I gave mine , not trying to pick ya apart.

M5 E60s look fucking brilliant.

Though, it might be the fact I know its a executive looking saloon that does 200mph.

Or I just don't like cars that are made just to basically look good.

The M5 is ugly now eh? Christ almighty, I don't care what people are staring at.... most people are douchebags anyway. Also, the TT looks like my semi-squashed left nut. I am very negative.

A Mazda B-series, or Ford Ranger, whichever you want call it, is not a pickup for someone who actually needs a pickup. Anyone who uses a pickup a decent amount is going to want a larger truck pretty much anytime they want to haul something. They absolutly suck for hauling in the bed, and couldn't pull a tapeworm out of a hooker's ass. I have a ford ranger, and definatly wish I had gone for an F-150 with a V6 engine. I would get the same gas mileage, since rangers barely make it to 20 mpg if you have the V6. Also, I could haul a lot more crap in it. It would also have more power, since with my ranger, I almost have to keep it floored to hold 65mph on the highway.

I have to disagree with OP, the e60 m5 is quite the looker, especially in white or interlagos blue.