That’s obviously an exaggeration, but why don’t manufacturers of basic cars just put a fancy-looking exterior onto them? Aren’t you mainly paying for the engine and electrics and upholstery and sound system with fancy cars? Why is it (seemingly) only Lamborghini and Ferrari that look like Lamborghini and Ferrari? Is chassis manufacturing more difficult than it seems to a numbnut like me? I assume it’s just pressing sheets of metal into a mould, so I’m probably way off the mark.

It’s like when you see a computer mouse that’s named something like GamerStealth eXtreme Zero Pro, and it’s the worst piece of shit you’ve ever used but looks like it came from Area 51. Same for PC cases, actually. Alienware rigs look a million percent better than they actually are. Why is this not also the case for cars?

Full disclosure: I know nothing about cars. I just know that when I see a fancy car, and check the make, it’s BMW or something high end, and when I see a pygmy hippo lookin’ motherfucker, it’s made by one of those “buy one, get one free” type manufacturers that appeal to meth head soccer moms. And by “fancy” I don’t even mean “luxury”, just obviously high quality. Most BMWs and Rolls-Royce don’t look like spaceships, but they nevertheless look really impressive. Again, I need to stress that I know nothing about cars.

Cheers!

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    411·
    2 days ago

    I would argue that it is already the case that cheap cars look and perform excellently, compared with cars produced fifty years ago. They are more reliable, economical, comfortable, higher performance, superior in virtually every respect.

    The other factor to consider is the use case. Something like a Ferrari is not reliable compared to a VW Golf, it sucks at carrying passengers and cargo, terrible fuel economy, it is horrible value for money and inferior in most ways apart from one - compensating for a small penis. That is its chief purpose and it is supremely well crafted for this use case.

    Source: automotive engineer of 25 years.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      6·
      2 days ago

      I would argue that it is already the case that cheap cars look and perform excellently, compared with cars produced fifty years ago.

      50 years? Try 30 and even 20 could be argued.

      • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 days ago

        I would not argue against that. Two steps forward and one back is usually how it goes with technology. Reliability is the problem that has only been achieved relatively recently. I remember a time when the hard shoulder was full of stalled vehicles. Japanese cars from the 70s and 80s were notably inferior to their competitors. We’ve come a long way in making this technology polished and affordable to the masses. Now the science shows us it is contributing to climate change and we have a new challenge. So it goes.