Modern car styling

Inspired from another thread, let's see what AF members think of the direction automotive styling is heading in.

Let's ignore econoboxes, which seem to have pledged an infinite alliance to the God of mediocrity. Let's look at luxury cars and supercars. Do you feel today's stylists and designers are doing a good job in rejuvenating the automotive supermodels that adorn our streets? Manufaturers are undoubtedly putting an ever-increasing emphasis on public research, or are the more original styling traits simply being creased out to comply with engineering constraints?

Personally, I'm not going to look too far back, partly because i haven't been around that long, but also because car styling is a reflection
of a point in time, and well, i dont really know what the 60's or 70's were like. But feel free to discuss whatever time period or specific models you feel strongly about. Personally I'm a not a big fan or the direction auto stylists seem to be heading in. There's no scientific way of determing a car's beauty / attractiveness so I will put it very simply.

From the moment I saw the Ferrari 360 Modena i knew it would never command the same admiration from me that the F355 does, and always will. And I was right. The F430 is another step down from the 360, which I attribute to the horrendous rear styling which almost ruins the look of the entire car for me.

The Porsche 996 is remarkably plain when compared to the flowing beauty and curves of the 993, and Porsche seem to be resigned to the fact that the 993 cannot be topped. The proof of this is in the 997, which, let's just say "borrows heavily" from the 993.

Lamborghini's Murcielago lacks the passion of the Diablo.

The Aston Martin DB9 is too 'clean' compared to the DB7. I could go on.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against evolution. These successors are far superior dynamically to their predecessors and motor enthusiasts should appreciate that. But should form always follow function?

What an absolutly superb thread! I wish I'd have thought of it...

I'm a late 50 and early to mid 60's man myself.

Top Three:

3: Mercedes SL Pagoda
2: Jaguar E Type series 1
1: Mercedes 300SL Gullwing

I don't think that car design is anything like it used to be. There are very few cars that I look at and just fall in love with these days. They just need to grow on me normally. There are exeptions. Mainly Aston Martin, with the Vanquish, DB7 and DB9. The Jaguar XK is still a mightly good looking car, as is the mercedes SL.

As long as there are the select passionate few amoung the ugly upper classes of the motoring world, then kids will have something to aspire to.

did i do this?
wow......

anyway.
i'm not really sure what to think.
i think much of it is down to the modern need to justify things and back reasonings with claims of 'this shape reduces drag' or somesuch.
i know part of this is just how modern design works.

take the gallardo.
the justification fof the slightly different approach to surfaces from the murcielago was that the shapes were determined by the structural qualities of the aluminium.

right....

and 'design language'?
flame surfacing?

what the fu.....?

what happened to the days when the cars' bodies were made to look good?
admittedly, things like the 250 GTO were designed with some reference to the latest aerodynamic theories and wind tunnel testing but still, much of it was still down to one man and his hammer.

you might've noticed that i'm kinda fond of a certain look of car.
like i said, that probably plays a greater part in this than anything.
personal preference i mean.

is a kid born in 1990 going to like a car made 35 years ago?
well, the answer is 'maybe' and that's kinda the point.

i think the DB4 GT zagato (lightweight) looks amazing and it's quite clear that this is the shape that the designers reference when thinking up a new aston martin.
but do you feel the same way?
probably not.

i'm not sure i agree with you about the 911 though.
i actually quite like the look of the 996, especially the GT3 RS but that might just be because of the sculptural quality the white paint adds.
in fact i'd say i'm not too keen on the 997.
in my mind, the rear lights don't look right and the alloys have gone the way of the modern design and lack the simplicity of the 996 wheels.
same with the nose.
looking at it from a design point of view i think the 996 is maybe the peak, ignoring quality issues and use of boxter headlights, which you have to admit, is part of the 'hate' campaign's arguments.
before the 996, the design was always based on the same silhouette.
the 996 took a departure and only referenced the general shape/proportions and i think does an excellent job of re-making a 911.

but i whole-heartedly agree about the murcielago.
it's too clinical (surprise surprise).
then again, that's not to say it doesn't look good,
just that it doesn't look as good.
as i said before, i think the only good 'wedge' lamborghini was/is the LP400 countach.
(best lamborghini designs ever? Miura and countach LP400)

you said the DB9 is too clean but in this case,
a clean 'wedge' is best.
in my opinion, the diablo was too fussy.
instead of shape being the reason you looked, it was the detailing that made you look.
in a way, the murcielago has tried to go back to pure form but something's not quite right.
i think it's too 'chiseled' as opposed to folded paper.

this probably has a lot to do with the use of cad and 3d modelling these days.

if we look at the cars that used a lot of hand modelling techniques we still see the 'old' trends.
best examples being the original S1 elise and tvrs like the griffith, cerbera and tuscan.

hmm, reading what i have just typed i seemed to have left something out.
modern cars seem to lack a certain 'passion' about them.
again, this is probably because how car design happens these days.
give it a few years.
when they start to use the computor to help design as opposed to design something they know they can model in a computor, things will change.
maybe then we'll see more 'passion'.

I won't vote in the poll since I have cars that I love in most decades and It would be rather imposible to decide.

about you comment
But should form always follow function?

In the automotive world, form must follow function no matter what. Cars are ultimatelly a practical creation. Even exotic cars.

However despite that, beatiful cars will always continue to be made. So despite engineering talking often precedence human ingenuity still finds ways to bring beauty and form.

Think of the cars engineering as a set of rules which a form of art must follow. For example even if another painter would be forced to follow the strict lines of Jaques Louis David, I still sure he would find a way to create something original.

Many forms of art are limited to their medium, painting to 2D, singing to a few bio resonance chambers etc...and depite these limitations they can create incredible beauty. And so can car design despite limitations set by engineering.

Bottom line I'm convinced beatiful cars will continue to be produced.


Now to the 360 Modena. I for once find it the best car yet to be designed. I see as a perfect template for a sports cars. The flowing lines the symetry....all add togheter to make it a true beauty.

About the murcielago, i see that as ze germans fault. They took too much passion out of it. The Gallardo on the other hand is what a proper lambo should look like. (beside tractor designs;))

did i do this?

:iceslolan

It's a topic that's often been debated - most recently trying to drill a bit of taste into Neutrino, j/k mate :p - but ive always been too lazy to start a thread solely focused on it. Now it's here, so back to the topic.


Flame surfacing is a new design methodology and therefore its no surprise that it has its critics. Every type of design technique / style was new at some point and had its critics, but is gradually refined. Only the passage of time will determine whether flame surfacing will be a success. Personally i think the Z4 looks stunning, especially with the ellipsoid alloys.

Your point on the Diablo is taken; indeed it isnt the purest of designs. But that to me is what Lamborghini is about, being outrageous and flamboyant, and i feel the Diablo was truer to this ethos than the Murc or Gallardo. Very simply, it looked spectacular. And still does.

On the 911, I agree; the 997 alloys are wrong. Overstyled, and just plain wrong. But you are the first person i have ever known to think that the 996 is the peak of 911 styling. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course :)
Yes, the Boxster headlight units have something to do with it, but its mainly the shape of the car that is criticised. Gone were those curves and sexy hips, and in came this more conformist shape. You say before the 996, all 911's had the same silhouette. I think the 993 looks very different to its ancestors, and quite simply, the perfect 911.


In the automotive world, form must follow function no matter what.

Of course. In the world of the supercar, performance is paramount. It's just a little bit annoying that by squeezing out that little bit more performance (by making the car more aerodynamic, say), the aesthetics of the vehicle are often compromised. But I suppose that's unavoidable :(

i thought the mid 90's was the peak of car design. when i say peak i mean thats when cars would still look good even by todays standards. example, the Z, the NSX, the 240, the supra, the RX-7 TT etc all looks fantastic even by todays standards. its hard to believe that some of these cars are over 10 years old!! in fact i feel that they look better then even todays modern cars.

i determine how well a car is designed by how long it can stand the test of time. most 80's cars looked good during the 80's but as soon as the 90's hit, that was it, it became a boxy old looking junk. however you look at the cars from the 90's even today it still hard to believe that the car is that old. i feel that the cars today will not look good 10 years from now as most of them are overly styled in alot of areas such as tail lights, and weird odd proportions. its more of a moment kind of design. not the classic form follow function.

well, what bugs me about 'flame surfacing' is that it isn't exactly a new thing.
it's just something that has been bandied about as design technique and is in my opinion, plain over-used.

look at the sides of the alfa 156 and tell me the shift in curve/surface directions isn't a tamer version of flame surface.

maybe i'm being a bit too critical about it;
blame it on my architecture background;
but if it is a good design, it doesn't need a name.
it's turned a design method/treatment into a marketing device and i'm not too keen on that respect.

and like i said, it's been over done.
does the z4 look good?
i think so.
but that has nothing to do with what they call flame surface
but
rather its the result of the treatment of meeting planes/surfaces.
if you get my drift....

what makes it worse is taht now they've give it a name, what happenes when they decide to stop doing it?
it's going to be dropped?
what does that mean?
that it's not good enough?
that their old cars are then 'out-of-date'?
well, maybe you get my meaning.
it's just a design practice that i don't agree with in general.
it's not the actual results that bother me,
although some of them have been questionable.

and back to the 911.
maybe peak isn't the right word
but i think there's something not quite right with the 997 (which is why i think it's 'dropped' slightly).
of course, i've only ever seen photos of it.
maybe the bits i see that don't 'work' aren't apparent in reality.
on the other hand i've quite a bit of exposure to the newish/last GT3 and i can't find a lot wrong with it.
compared to the 993 i much prefer the less upright windscreen.
i think the smoother back-side (please excuse my choice of words...) flows better than the 993.
i'll admit that from behind, the stance isn't quite the same but it works with the lights and the lines that the bumper makes with the lights.
i much prefer the sleek/smooth bullet like nose.
well, i just think it's tidier than the 993.
don't get me wrong, i think the 993 works by itself too but the styling lacks something.
(could just be the age of the design/details)
put the two side by side and i'd go for the 996, that's all i'm saying.
remember this is going purely on designs.

of the japanese cars, i only really like the RX-7 and the NSX.
there's something very pure about their lines and there is no added 'flash' to them.
y'know, no overdone design lines, which is where the flame surfacing thing comes back.....

look the current crop of ferrari designs.
will you look at them in the same way in twenty years time as you look at a 288 GTO now?
is the 612's looks really going to last as long as the 456s did?

maybe it's not ferrari's fault, as it were.
before, nobody else made cars that looked like ferrari.
these days lots of people do.

i think that's had an effect.
maybe it isn't the car designs of ferrari that have gotten worse but rather it is the car designs of normal everyday(ish) cars that have gotten better.
maybe we're just spoilt by cars like the alfa GTV, fiat coupe, ford puma, 406 coupe and more recently, the RX-8.
for cars of their price, they certainly 'look' more expensive.
and
that's ignoring 'anomalies' such as the elise/vx220.

the 60's musclecars have great styling, especially the fastbacks

This has to be one of the most interlectually stimulating threads ever! I love it!

I can't say I agree with the mid 90's cars, but thats just me. Theres a real passion and concern as to a cars apperance form cars in the 50's and 60's. This was after all where the manufacturers were attempting to gain a prestige, and a name for themselvs. Makes you wonder what would have happened if ford had thought of the E-Type before Jaguar? Would Jag be the peoples car, and ford, a luxury car maker?

well, what bugs me about 'flame surfacing' is that it isn't exactly a new thing.

(.....)

look at the sides of the alfa 156 and tell me the shift in curve/surface directions isn't a tamer version of flame surface.
Blame this on my lack of art / design / architecture background, but i just don't see this:

http://www.trader.pl/images/pl/big_images/alfa_romeo_156_3.jpg

http://www.3drt.com/3dm/bmw-z4/z4-12.jpg

I dont think you can compare that one slash across the side of the 156 to the Z4's scalloped sides. Imo this aspect of the Z4's styling is original enough to be labelled a new technique. Which leads me to...


but if it is a good design, it doesn't need a name.

Why not? We classify great works of art under different style categories. Im sure there are names for different brush strokes / techniques. And put it this way: if i came up with something new, I wouldnt mind giving it a name. I can see it now, 'the czj options pricing model' :iceslolan

err.. sorry. Back on topic. :grinno:


it's turned a design method/treatment into a marketing device and i'm not too keen on that respect.

I for one havent seen BMW use the "flame surfacing" tag to sell any of their cars (correct me if im wrong). Whenever ive come across the term it's been car journos questioning Bangle's sanity (or eyesight). Most car buyers don't read car magazines, or know what an inline six is let alone the fact their Z4 is powered by one. Most of the people i know buy cars because of their badge and looks. So if that's what you mean by BMW using flame surfacing as a marketing device, well, all i can say is that all car manufacturers style their cars to sell.


does the z4 look good?
i think so.
but that has nothing to do with what they call flame surface
but
rather its the result of the treatment of meeting planes/surfaces.
if you get my drift....

:confused: I dont see the relevance of this. Flame surfacing is just a quicker way of saying "treatment of meeting planes/surfaces". Whats the biggie?


what makes it worse is taht now they've give it a name, what happenes when they decide to stop doing it?
it's going to be dropped?
what does that mean?
that it's not good enough?
that their old cars are then 'out-of-date'?
Exactly. BMW will one day stop using "flame surfacing" not because it's not good enough, but indeed because something else will be in demand. The swoopy cars of the 60's weren't around for ever. So what? I dont look at them in a lesser light because of it. Everything goes in and out of style at some stage. So let's see if the Z4 still looks good in 20 years time. Rendez-vous: this thread, 4th of October 2024 :iceslolan

I dont think any manufacturer is massively interested in styling a car that will stand the test of time. Sales figures are the only thing that count and therefore capturing the current mood / fashion is what they're after. Sometimes it produces beautiful results that last, sometimes it produces beautiful results that don't, and sometimes it produces utterly uninspiring shapes.




As for the 911, i do agree with you that the 996 is tidier than the 993 but that's precisely the problem for me. I can think of a dozen japanese cars that are tidy in design, but also completely anonymous and lacking in character. The 996 is too tidy for me, and the 911 just lost too much charm in the transition from 993 to 996. Yes, the GT3 looks great but is it as seductive as the curvaceous 993 Turbo? Not for me. Let's wait and see what the 997 is like in the metal.



As for Ferrari, i agree with you that the 456's looks will last longer then the 612's, but that's purely because i think the 612 is ugly from the start!


I personally dont like the RX8. To me that car is completely overstyled and a case of not knowing when to say when.

Now the 406 coupe, that is undisputably an absolute beauty :cool:

http://www.pungas.com/galerija/albums/peugeot/peugeot406coupe/52_406COUPE.jpg

maybe i'm just over-reading things cos of my particular perspective on things....

and um, i was refering to the concave/convex meeting of lines.
not the lines themselves.
the norm is just a fold/crease.
on the alfa, it is the same kind of convex/concave switch.
the big thing about the bmw way is that the line where the surfaces meet isn't the usual straight line.
with that respect, they're not the first company to use non-linear lines
but they might be the first to use both.

and the thing with giving it a name.
it kinda leads them to 'owning' that particular use of line/surface.
now, other people will be 'copying' them.
and when they stop doing it, other people who might use it will be doing something old.
and the naming of it gives it an identity and as such has a time related issue as it were; again, going back to in/out of date issues.

and it's almost as if the naming of it, calling it a technique is their justifying bad desined cars.

y'know, something like "not our fault it doesn't look good, it's just a new technique"
that kinda thing.

like i said.
maybe i am just being too critical because of my background.
or maybe it's because the royal college of art rejected my portfolio for auto design.....
or maybe its because us designers are all pretentious shits who talk too much minge-crust.
(which would kinda go to explain the use of the term 'flame surface'...)

going to something i really know about.
there was a thing few years back in the architecture books.
it was called hypersurface.
basically it was a surface that could convey information.
the guy would go around giving lectures about these amazing architectural devices but at the end of the day it was all old hat and at it's most basic, not much more than a television screen that you could interact with that would go to make up a wall/surface in a build/environment.
i.e touchscreen.
all he did was give it a name.
admittedly he did do a lot of reseach on interface possibilties (as well as theoretical implications on society/individual and all the usual architecture palaver)
but at the end of the day, it wasn't anything new.
this is kinda what i see here with 'flame surface'.
anyway........

and yeah, y'know what, i kinda agree with you about the RX-8.
i only really like ONE view of it.
definitely over detailed, especially the rear end
but i still like the general shape of it.
i just couldn't really think of a new car that would go in the list.....
and i love the 406 coupe.
every time i see one on the road i wonder why people would still go and buy the regular 4 door.
you can't really love your kids that much.
and if you did, you would go and buy the coupe FOR them.

Actually the height of automotive artistic design was before the second world war before the coachbuilders died off.

As diehard a Ferrari fan as I am, even a 250GTO or 330P4 looks drab next to one of the magnificent Benz 540K's......

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/1116-1.jpg

the glittering Duesenberg SSJ's.....

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/1833-1.jpg

the bold and stately Packards

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/1359-1.jpg

the exquisite Bugatti 57SC's

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/1022-2.jpg

the daring and avant garde Talbot Lagos

http://www.ritzsite.net/Loo1999/Talbot_Lago_T150_SS_coupe_Figoni_et_Falaschi_1937. jpg

and the dazzling Delahaye 135's

http://www.pscars.wallst.ru/oldcar/1937delahaye.jpg

As beautiful as the cars of the 50's and 60's were, the cars of the late 20's into the late 30's were astonishing.

Well, I think every postwar decade has it's highs and lows.

I mean back in the 50's every car looked completely different from the next car and Japan had yet to produce anything of note. That decade spawned some beautiful rounded designs such as:

-Mercedes Benz SL (First generation)
-Ferrari 250GT and 250MM
-Jaguar XK120 (OK, so it spawned in the late 40's, but it really was a symbol of the 50's) and the XK150
-Aston Martin DB2 (And I suppose the DB3 as well)
-Bentley R-Type Continental Mulliner sedan
-BMW 507
-Chevrolet Corvette
-Rolls Royce Silver Cloud
-Morris Minor 1000 (Simply because this has to be the "friendliest" looking car in the world, full stop.)
-Porsche 356
-Triumph TR3
-MGA
-Lancia Aurellia B20 Coupe
-Citroen DS

So the trend in the 1950's was to produce cars with sexy flowing curves and as a result, that's where we got the worlds most elegant cars.

However the 60's was where most of my favourite designs come from:

-Lamborghini Miura
-Aston Martin DB5
-Ford GT40 Mk 2
-Ferrari 250 LM
-Ferrari 250 GTO
-Volvo P1800S
-Jaguar E Type (My second favourite design ever)
-Toyota 2000GT (Note the Japanese are slowly learning)
-Aston Martin DB4 Zagato
-Alfa Romeo Guilia TZ2
-Ferrari 250 GT Lusso
-Ferrari 330 GTC


I could go on, but the point is, it seemed to be an evolution rather than revolution, from the 1950's, the smooth lines were still there, but they just for whatever reason got sexier, I can honestly not put my finger on what it is, either.

The 70's was where car design started to go bad, every American car from the 70's was unspeakably ugly (With the exception of the Corvette) and the Italians seemed fixated on trying to blend the American designs with sleek Euro-bodies, while BMC completely lost the plot (With an exception of a few).

The Ferrari Daytona was quite a fusion of the wedgey 70's and elegant 60's (It had to be, since it ran from '68-'73)

Still the feature cars of the 70's were:
-ISO Grifo IR8
-Lamborgini Espada (My favourite design ever- Just so cool, I suppose)
-Lancia Stratos
-Porsche 911 Turbo
-Lotus Esprit
-Ferrari 246GTS (Which broke with the 70's tradition, respect.)
-Datsun 240Z
-Rover SD1

The 80's were more or less just as bad as the 70's, the Americans hit rock bottom, the Japanese cars of that time were bland (Even cars like the Starion, Z31 300ZX, AW11 MR2 etc.). Of course the late 80's provided a nice rush of great looking cars from Japan, Italy and Germany like:

-E34 BMW 5 series
-Nissan 300ZX (Z32)
-Mazda RX7
-Nissan 200SX (RPS13)
-E30 BMW M3
-Ferrari 348
-Honda NSX
-Nissan R32 Skyline GTR (The only good looking Skyline)
-Lancia Delta Integrale Evo
-Alfa Romeo 164 and Lancia Thema
-Mitsubishi 3000GT/GTO.

I suppose the reason I liked these cars was because they were unfussy, with nice simple, but effective lines and were really the closest thing there was to the 1960's. Very "pretty"


The 1990's is the other peak as far as styling is concerned, it was a continium of the late 1980's and some very elegant and emotional designs were released, which have yet to be topped.

These included:
-Mazda RX7 (FD3S)
-Ferrari F355
-Lamborghini Diablo
-Dodge Viper RT/10
-Chevrolet Corvette C5
-FIAT Coupe
-Peugeot 406 Coupe and pre-facelift Sedan
-Volvo C70
-Rover 75
-Aston Martin DB7
-Jaguar XK8
-Ferrari 550 Maranello
-Ferrari 456GT
-Porsche 911 993
-Ferrari F50
-Jaguar XJ220

and the list goes on.

Basically, the cars today aren't as elegant as that, the 360 Modena was nice, but the F430 is over board, the Maserati 3200GT was great, until the boomerang lights got taken off, the Enzo doesn't look anywhere as great as the F50, the RX8 is over done next to the RX7's (No wonder it got a place in X Men), the 612 Scagaletti doesn't look like a Ferrari, the Murcielago has lost the essence of the Diablo, the Porcshe 996 911 is the coldest looking car available, etc.

However some makers are still getting it right:
Alfa Romeo (147, 156, GT, GTV/Spider)
Audi (A6, TT)
Aston Martin (DB9, Vanquish)
BMW (Z4, 7 Series, E46 M3)
Chrysler (Crossfire roadster)
Mercedes-Benz (SLK, CL, SL, CLK, SLR)
Honda (Accord/TSX, Integra/RSX, S2000)
Volkswagen (Passat)
Skoda (Superb, previous Octavia)
Citroen (C3, new C4)
Peugeot (407, 307CC)
Mazda (MX5, 6)
Holden (Commodore VY)
Opel (new Astra)
Renault (Clio V6)

and I could honestly go on, but I won't because I can't be arsed writing any more.

But my point is, that different decades have different styles.

...kinda disappointed no-one's mentioed the Alfa Romeo T33/2 Stradale or the Jaguar XKSS....

yeah, there were some truely beautiful pre-war cars.
Touring Alfa Romeo 8C2900B
Frazer Nash Le Mans Replica

y'know, looking through your little lists,
it seems to me that yes, every decade has somethingto offer but in general, the 60s was when the most icons were made.

and yeah, what bright spark took the boomerang lights of the 3200GT?

Im glad you mentioned the Maserati 3200GT, Jimmy, because that is the prime example of a manufacturer listening to consumer research instead of a respected designer. Rich American fatsos who know nothing about car design thought the boomerang lights were too "out there" and wanted something more conventional... The oafs should stick to Mustangs...

I thought I was the only one who thought like that about the maserati. The 4200 is nothing on the 3600.

How about the Mark II Jag. That is a beautiful car, as is the new S type. Mercedes 500/540K are just superb. How about the Bently Blower too.

Im glad you mentioned the Maserati 3200GT, Jimmy, because that is the prime example of a manufacturer listening to consumer research instead of a respected designer. Rich American fatsos who know nothing about car design thought the boomerang lights were too "out there" and wanted something more conventional... The oafs should stick to Mustangs...


Oh yeah I remember that. I was quite pissed too. Those tailights really made that car something special.


About Layla's post, I agree that early era had some trully beatiful cars. I belive that was partly due to design having precedence over engineering. I don't think those cars spend tht much time in a wind tunell or crash testing.

But as jay listed pretty much every era had its good cars. Even the 80's. The 1984 Ferrari 288 GTO was one of the best cavalinos IMO.

the testarossa was the beautifullest car ever designed. and it was 97 when the corvette changed its look to look soooo sweeet.

http://www.velocetoday.com/images/aug03/ds14.jpg

Yep, I can agree that the Testa Rossa was a gorgeous car and its competition record is amongst the finest any Ferrari sportscar has ever had. This particular one is the "Fantuzzi Spyder" which raced Le Mans in 1959. This car lost to Roy Salvadori and Carrol Shelby, who were driving an Aston Martin DBR1. The only interruption in Olivier Gendebien's streak of Le Mans 24 hour wins, 3 of which came in Testa Rossas.

Of course, more famous is the 1957-58 "pontoon fender" styling which was actually a necessity to cool the 170mph big V12 Ferrari's drum brakes at the end of the Mulsanne.

http://www.classicdriver.com/upload/images/_uk/11925/img04pop.jpg

http://www.dennigcars.org/models/pictures/ferrari_testarossa.jpg

i was thinking more of this

......i was afraid that was what you meant.....

i've heard that car been called many things but i don't recall "beautifullest", or even just "beautiful" being one of them.

still, if it floats your boat.
of the flat 12s i prefer the 365 boxer.

:disappoin :disappoin :disappoin

The Testarossa (one word) was an atrocity, an inelegant and ungainly design that forsook Ferrari tradition (including four round tail lights) for pure shock value.

It's more something you'd expect out of those crass whores at Lamborghini than a proper Ferrari. At least the 512BB had competition history, but the Testarossa was an unforgivable mess of a car that deserved to die ingloriously.

When the 512M was replaced by the 550 Maranello, a mighty cheer went up from us Tifosi because finally that Miami Vice EYESORE was out of the Ferrari line-up for good.

I cant believe that they had the ordasity to tar such an evocotive name with that pile of oversized, underpowered 80's crap!

underpowered?
390 bhp in 1984 is quite respectable.

Respectable it may be, but Ferrari used to be the best. not "respectable"

Its not good enough!

so what do you think of the 512BBi?
considering that they share practically the same engine.

testarossa.
bad design? i think so
but you can't really say that engine was underpowered.
i mean, what were your beloved Mercedes Benz engines producing in naturally aspired form in 84?

The problem with the flat 12 in the Testarossa isn't lack of power, not by a long shot. Let us remember that the Ferrari flat 12 took several F1 championships against the all conquering Cosworth DFV V8 in the 70's.

However, the problem with the Testarossa has always been an overheavy pig of a chassis (the fact that the engine sits on top of the transaxle plays no small part in this). Those 390bhp were saddled with 3300lbs. Compared to its 1984 stablemates, the 288GTO (400bhp, 2550lbs) and the 328GTB (270bhp, 2770lbs) the Testarossa was a tank.

Thats what I was trying to say.

And what have mercedes got to do with it. Anybody would think you are looking for an argument...

not an argument.
i have no idea what other prestige car makes were making those days in terms of engine power.
i chose to use Mercedes Benz cos i figured you would know
and that would serve as a useful reference, especially for one who seems to have a passion for MB.
maybe that was a bad choice and i can see now how that can be misconstrued.

if that caused any offence, then i apologise.

Well merc were closely alied with Cosworth in the mid 80's and 90's. They had the 5.6 V12, fitted to the SL SEL and SEC, but they were too heavy to be sports cars. The C111 was the only real sports car that was more capable than a Ferrari in thoes days, and it was only a limeted run non-production version, with some quality issues.