No one is saying there are no development costs, what I am saying is that price does not determine if a car looks good or vice versa, that is not the same thing as what you are saying at all.
Never said anyone was. Again what I said is development costs play a role in the end results of how a car looks and other areas like performance, parts, materials and so forth. Thus things get eliminated or altered to make compromise at the cost of something else. That's just how it is in in design engineering and I've seen it first hand. That's not to say this car couldn't look better or have taken the clay model design we've seen more to heart. However, for what it is and what they're actually trying to achieve with the car I think it's a good start.
I would be interested to see where you are getting this information from. I am using the British Pound because I am British and those are the prices that apply to me, I am aware it isn't universal much like the USD. Fact remains the Esprit was a budget supercar in the 90's, if it was more expensive in other contries that is likely due to hiked dealer comissions and costs of export (i.e.taxes and shipping) not R&D.
And I'm doing the same... Also no where did I ever say the Espirit was more expensive due to R&D or hint at such. I just simply rebuked your claim that it was a budget super car, still do so and have alread listed cars cheaper than it. Much like how the Pound and prices within it relate to you the same goes for the Dollar to me. And just like the Vette was more expensive in your country the same was probably the case with the Lotus but as said other cars that weren't from here in the category were cheaper (e.g. 911).
Fair point, but the fact that it's a budget car in the market it was made in is what is relevent here, much like the Corvette costs less in the US which is the market it was made in. If I use the Corvettes UK price then the Corvette suddenly isn't that budget a supercar either, so we have to put them into thier respective primary markets for any proper analysis to work.
Cool it was a budget in a singular market, probably why it didn't make any ground break sales or really beat out those it was supposedly a budget to, which isn't even really the point to the main topic. I simply disagreed with you on the Lotus being a budget super car, there really isn't more to discuss on it.
I'm not arguing against R&D costs here, just that a car looking good or not isn't determined by it's price, there are a lot of cars that I can use. TVR's for example out performed cars far far more expensive but looked phenominal. The Honda S2000 was a budget 2 seater sportscar I really like the look of, but it wasn't more expensive than other cars in it's catergory that were IMO uglier. The Aston Martin Vantage is IMO a much nicer looking car than the Mercedes AMG GT. Whether these cars look good or not is not determined by their prices, hence why a cheap car can look nice and an expensive one can look nice or they can both look ugly. Certainly looks are engineered in a certain way, but depending on the directtion of that, the results will look good or not to the beholder.
No these cars looks as a whole and what could have been more ascetically pleasing are dictated by the development which in the end effects price. The place you're arguing from is a subjective idea on looks, when I'm not talking about that. You're going to think certain cars look good or bad regardless of engineering and designer choices made that led to that final look.
I've already long said that if you like or dislike the looks that you're personal choice, but if your claiming that they could of done x, y, z and other cars in completely different categories look better. It's a bit of a leap and to me should be logically looked at.
I'd much more appreciate the car looking nice across the lineup than having a good looking model (let's see how it ends up) at the top and the versions below it looking progressively uglier as it gets cheaper. That doesn't really follow IMO though, I usulaly find the halo cars to be uglier than the parred down versions as they are often covered in spoilers, wings and splitters and more vents etc. I don't personally go for that, but I know some people do.
Base model does look good, it's not really that ugly of a car and it seems quit the exaggeration to suggest it is. Again though that you're personal view point. Despite what you personally go for or not, those parts they're "covered" with actually have a purpose due to the nature of what said halo car is trying to achieve.
Going back to my argument about looks v price, I can detail countless examples of cars that prove my point, I think you are maybe reading too much into what I am saying and over defending the C8 as a result. I understand a decision will have been made to style it based on this factor or that, and then they use R&D to achieve that goal, but they could have made the car look different and potentially better as a result for the same price.
Going back to it why? We've hashed it out at several points in this post and previous ones... I'm only defending engineering choices that came to this final product.
Cheverolet didn't need to make the car look just like it does, they could have styled it differently without increasing development costs by making different choices at various stages of the process. It looks like it does because someone made a choice to design it that way based on x or y at a certain point in time.
Such as? See this is where you leave a subjective realm or opinion and you encroach on the reality of choices they made (again). How do you know they could have styled it differently without increasing costs? It's interesting how they carried over design features of other cars in their line up and the previous gen Corvette styling for better or worse. IT is X or Y that dictates why you design something a certain way which is usually stipulated by the cost.
People have even suggested subtle changes in this thread that would have improved it without affecting much else. Ultimately it is entirely possible to have two cars of similar performances and prices where one looks nice but the other looks ugly.
Quite a few things are possible the fact of the matter is we don't know all that much if said changes would make the car perform the same or keep the price in the same area.
At the end of the day you seem to adamantly believe that a group of designers and engineers made the wrong choices and thus a car was produced that to you looks ugly and could have had more effort put into it. Considering that this car has been in development for about four years I wouldn't say that they were at all short on effort but to each their own. I honestly don't see any reason to further press on with this cause it's just a reciprocating re post about design choices, R&D and the final price and if that effects the final looks, a Lotus Espirit (that you never even said what era, I had to guess) and if or not it looks good which is subjective.
All that is to say that the old NSX, the new NSX, and the C8 are all kind of chasing different targets and not easily comparable. 
