New GT Vision cars are incredibly trashy

[NixxxoN]

Except:

You already conceded that you were comparing looks on the basis of engine layout, so your ludicrous assertion that the two sentences don't mean the same thing to try to get out of answering the question was moot before you even typed it. So are you simply saying words randomly and hoping that they construct a cognizant point?

But I'll ask again anyway: For a purely fantasy concept car, what difference does the engine layout make on the styling when comparing it to another purely fantasy concept car?

Wow, you really try hard to make yourself look like an erudite, but I'm still right anyway so your effort is not very useful.
A mid engine car is a mid engine car and a front engine car, i dont need to expain to you the huge differences between those types, I suppose you know already, mr "know it all".
Who cares if it's a fantasy car or a real car. Its a car from the game anyway, and in the game it doesnt really matter if the car exists in real life or not, it makes no difference, because they all work the same.

 

[swynder]

I don´t understand you people... Why on earth are you complaining about free cars wich are entirely exclusive to GT6? I mean, they´re free, they´re free in game, and you won´t find them nowhere except in GT6... I mean, if a guy walked right to you and said: "Here, have this free brand new Mercedes S-Class" Would you turn it down just because it wasn´t in the colour you liked?

 

[omgsean1]

I

Huh?

 

[swynder]

Huh?

Sorry... It was a mistake I was going to write more but it posted the "I" somehow..

 

[Tornado]

A mid engine car is a mid engine car and a front engine car, i dont need to expain to you the huge differences between those types, I suppose you know already, mr "know it all".

There are absolutely huge differences. Packaging constraints. Cooling concerns. Handling considerations. For the most part, however, those are technical/mechanical issues rather than styling restrictions.


Let's look at an example:

Those two cars are extremely similarly styled, since the first one was highly influential in its day. One is rear engined. The other is the traditional front engine, rear drive. Aside from the front on one of them, where are the dictated styling cues?

Here's another:

Can you even tell me which one of those is rear engined purely on looks when even the front engine one has massive vents on the rear fender?




You're also still ignoring that the Citroen by GT was not created as a mid-engined car, meaning your entire premise is nonsense to begin with. So, let's rephrase the question: What difference does engine placement make to two cars where none of the above things factor in? Or, more specifically, why is it that two styling exercises with no intention of actual production (and therefore purely theoretical drivetrains) cannot be visually compared when styling is the only thing being considered?

Who cares if it's a fantasy car or a real car. Its a car from the game anyway, and in the game it doesnt really matter if the car exists in real life or not, it makes no difference, because they all work the same.

How profound.



You don't seem to realize it, but it also helps your argument quite a bit regarding how engine layout dictates if a car does exist in real life; because if you don't have to worry about interior room, or handling capability, or drivetrain space requirements, you can quite literally style a car any way you want and it doesn't matter what you say the car is powered by since it will never be required to be put to the test.

 

[NixxxoN]

Hahaha, now you're talking about rear engines, which are completely different to mid-engines... dude just stop... mid-engine cars must be aestetically different from the front engined ones, end of. and i never talked about rear engined ones.
The citroen GT was maybe not thought at first to be a mid-engine car, but who cares, it ended up being a mid-engined car and therefore was adapted for such, it has the layout and the side cooling intakes, and overall its designed as a typical mid-engine car, so...

 

[Samus]

"swing and a miss"... Are you playing baseball?

Indeed he said "The Volkswagen Vision GT looks extremely similar" and not "The styling in both cars look similar"

What, and that isn't the same thing to you?

 

[NixxxoN]

What, and that isn't the same thing to you?

no

 

[Samus]

no

So when someone says to you they think two cars look similar what exactly do you think they're referring to?

 

[NixxxoN]

So when someone says to you they think two cars look similar what exactly do you think they're referring to?

the whole car in general

 

[Samus]

the whole car in general

In regards to what? The look of a car is the exterior, what it's forms are like. I don't know if it's a language barrier issue here but if someone tells me two cars look the same we're talking about it's form/line/general shape.

 

[Tornado]

Hahaha, now you're talking about rear engines, which are completely different to mid-engines...

And are also completely different from front engine cars, so perhaps attempt to answer the question. What aesthetic changes were dictated in any of the four cars I posted?

dude just stop... mid-engine cars must be aestetically different from the front engined ones, end of.

The citroen GT was maybe not thought at first to be a mid-engine car, but who cares

The person who designed it it as a four motor hydrogen electric car probably does. It's also fairly... um... important for your argument that a car's looks are dictated by its drivetrain that the car you are arguing is an example of such was actually envisioned with the drivetrain you claim it was designed for.

it ended up being a mid-engined car and therefore was adapted for such,

It wasn't "adapted" for anything when the styling wasn't changed in the slightest and they never actually built it anyway.

it has the layout and the side cooling intakes,

That's funny, because so does the "front engined" VW.

and overall its designed as a typical mid-engine car, so...

And no, it still wasn't.

no

the whole car in general

Except you already indicated that you knew he was referring to looks and were quoted as such, so perhaps lying to avoid answering the issues with your "facts" isn't the best option for you right now.

 

[mister dog]

Depends on personal tastes of course, but i for one am not interested at all in driving fantasy cars. It's probably a good publicity stunt for both the manufacturers and for PD, but i can't be bothered with them.

Shame they seem to put the main focus of their regular DLC just there, and not on adding new existing cars. They all look like spaceships, but in the end only some aesthetical elements will make it on their future models.

 

[NixxxoN]

And are also completely different from front engine cars, so perhaps attempt to answer the question. What aesthetic changes were dictated in any of the four cars I posted?

The person who designed it it as a four motor hydrogen electric car probably does. It's also fairly... um... important for your argument that a car's looks are dictated by its drivetrain that the car you are arguing is an example of such was actually envisioned with the drivetrain you claim it was designed for.



It wasn't "adapted" for anything when the styling wasn't changed in the slightest and they never actually built it anyway.


That's funny, because so does the "front engined" VW.


And no, it still wasn't.


Except you already indicated that you knew he was referring to looks and were quoted as such, so perhaps lying to avoid answering the issues with your "facts" isn't the best option for you right now.

you do anything to try to win arguments over the internet dont you? or you simply enjoy disagreeing.
I was talking about MR vs FR, not REAR ENGINED CARS. Actually, FR and RR cars can look very similar because the trunk and the engine bay can be swapped, unlike MR cars.
Those two pics you posted with the CRX del Sol and the MR2, well, to me they are clearly different.
The GT by Citroen was never built?

About the VW, it definitely looks too short in the back, not enough space for placing an engine it seems. Those things in the side are probably for aestetics and airflow purposes, not for engine cooling.

In regards to what? The look of a car is the exterior, what it's forms are like. I don't know if it's a language barrier issue here but if someone tells me two cars look the same we're talking about it's form/line/general shape.

well, botton line is, they have SOME similarities, but dont really look the same, so... lets stop it here because this goes nowhere.

 

[Samus]

So after all that you're agreeing? Because he never said they looked the same, he said they looked very similar.

 

[Tornado]

you do anything to try to win arguments over the internet dont you?

Again, it's not too terribly hard when you constantly say incredibly foolish things then refuse to answer them when questioned about them.


Still would love to see a single magazine article that states how awful handling all American cars were "in the past".

I was talking about MR vs FR, not REAR ENGINED CARS.

Thank you. I didn't quite grasp this the first time. All caps really helps.

Actually, FR and RR cars can look very similar because the trunk and the engine bay can be swapped, unlike MR cars.

At which point only difference is how much the engine intrudes on the interior, which for most cars is fairly important as a design consideration. That's not an exterior styling difference.

Those two pics you posted with the CRX del Sol and the MR2, well, to me they are clearly different.

They are clearly different, and yet the Del Sol was very clearly styled to look like a mid engined car after the huge success of the original MR2; so it can't be dictated that much.

The GT by Citroen was never built?

Yeah, it was never built. They put together a lone handbuilt preproduction prototype that they never sold, which certainly goes quite a way towards not having to worry about "cooling" or "handling" or "interior design."


And you can ignore it as much as you want, but the car wasn't designed as a mid-engined vehicle, so the fact that they were planning (but never did, importantly) to possibly build a half dozen as mid engine cars and they didn't change a single thing about the exterior is not a feather in your cap.

About the VW, it definitely looks too short in the back, not enough space for placing an engine it seems. Those things in the side are probably for aestetics and airflow purposes, not for engine cooling.

well, botton line is, they have SOME similarities, but dont really look the same, so... lets stop it here because this goes nowhere.

"I'm sorry guys. Leave me alone."

 

[NixxxoN]

Still would love to see a single magazine article that states how awful handling all American cars were "in the past".

lol you still remember that comment I made? You seem angry at me since then Yes, american cars were USUALLY made for straightlines, not for corners (because of american roads which are usually full of straights everywhere), they did have inferior handling to european cars, thats the usual. And please, do not try to search any american car magazines for bad reviews of american cars, you would expect to always find bias for national cars. Look for example Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson reviews.
Anyway for example the muscle car enthusiasts themselves would tell you that the handling of those cars wasn't good, they were straightline machines.

The R5 Turbo has the back seats removed so the engine can fit, also has obvious air intakes, however the Vision GT seems to have quite a long front and the seats are quite far back.

Edit:

Its a front engined, 4WD as I said.

 

[Numbers]

lol you still remember that comment I made? You seem angry at me since then Yes, american cars were USUALLY made for straightlines, not for corners (because of american roads which are usually full of straights everywhere), they did have inferior handling to european cars, thats the usual. And please, do not try to search any american car magazines for bad reviews of american cars, you would expect to always find bias for national cars. Look for example Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson reviews.
Anyway for example the muscle car enthusiasts themselves would tell you that the handling of those cars wasn't good, they were straightline machines.



The R5 Turbo has the back seats removed so the engine can fit, also has obvious air intakes, however the Vision GT seems to have quite a long front and the seats are quite far back.

Edit:

Its a front engined, 4WD as I said.

I love the GTV GTi. the amount of detail Volkswagen has put in to it is breath taking. I mean cutaways? awesome. building a one off? awesome hopefully see it on top gear in series 22!

 

[Tornado]

lol you still remember that comment I made? You seem angry at me since then

Why on earth would I be mad about you drawing direct attention to the fact that you were incapable of defending something you claimed?
In fact, let's not beat around the bush now that you're trying to rewrite what you said then:

Just a couple of examples: I'd take a Honda NSX and Mazda RX-7 from the 90's, over any american car from the 90's, im talking about handling cars for driving on track. American cars used to suck in terms of handling, and it's not me saying this, its every honest car expert and reviewer.

Then you refused to provide even one example. It's certainly not too difficult to find American cars as far back as the mid 1980s that handled very well, but generally were let down in every other measure so they still weren't very revered. The C4 Corvette in general is a very good example.



The only reason it was mentioned as it was the first directly comparable example that came to mind of your propensity to misunderstand the word "facts" to mean "statements that are convenient to act as if they are true."

Yes, american cars were USUALLY made for straightlines, not for corners (because of american roads which are usually full of straights everywhere), they did have inferior handling to european cars, thats the usual. And please, do not try to search any american car magazines for bad reviews of american cars, you would expect to always find bias for national cars.

Actually, since I grew up reading all three of the major American automotive magazines and saw how frequently those supposedly favored American cars came dead last in test after test after test, I'm going to chalk this up as being another "fact."

Look for example Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson reviews.

I'd rather look at reviews from an actual journalism source rather than an entertainment one if I'm using it in an argument.

Anyway for example the muscle car enthusiasts themselves would tell you that the handling of those cars wasn't good, they were straightline machines.

The muscle car era was in the 1960s, so not the most relevant thing to use as a comparison. For that matter, going on from the "fact" above, most of the time American car magazines hated those cars so fondly remembered today; especially as the cars got poorer and poorer as the decade came to a close.

The R5 Turbo has the back seats removed so the engine can fit, also has obvious air intakes, however the Vision GT seems to have quite a long front and the seats are quite far back.

So the main reason the R5 doesn't count is because to get it to fit they removed the rear seats that the Vision VW also doesn't have; and the massive intake vents right behind the rear door which the Vision VW does have?


That reminds me:

Wish I had remembered that sooner. So front engined it hurts.

Edit:

Its a front engined, 4WD as I said.

Ah ha! The decisive evidence of the thing that no one was ever arguing against! Congratulations?


Though it's rather moot now that you already admitted that they do look similar. And that you spent all that time trying to find a cutaway of that but still refused to acknowledge that the GT by Citroen didn't have an engine at all in its original design.

 

[KinLM]

lol you still remember that comment I made? You seem angry at me since then Yes, american cars were USUALLY made for straightlines, not for corners (because of american roads which are usually full of straights everywhere), they did have inferior handling to european cars, thats the usual. And please, do not try to search any american car magazines for bad reviews of american cars, you would expect to always find bias for national cars. Look for example Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson reviews.
Anyway for example the muscle car enthusiasts themselves would tell you that the handling of those cars wasn't good, they were straightline machines.



The R5 Turbo has the back seats removed so the engine can fit, also has obvious air intakes, however the Vision GT seems to have quite a long front and the seats are quite far back.

Edit:

Its a front engined, 4WD as I said.

Every post you make makes you look even more ignorant than the last. Countless people have explained this to you and yet you continue to ignore them because you're too obsessed with the false correlation between drivetrain layout and the design of a concept car.

None of this changes the fact that the true argument here is whether or not the Citroen GT looks like the VW VGT (which it does, in many ways, look similar).

But you keep saying that these cars don't 'look' the same because they have different drivetrains, which makes no sense at all. They don't look identical, but they look similar. The drivetrain doesn't change this in any way whatsoever.

 

[NixxxoN]

Why on earth would I be mad about you drawing direct attention to the fact that you were incapable of defending something you claimed?
In fact, let's not beat around the bush now that you're trying to rewrite what you said then:

Then you refused to provide even one example. It's certainly not too difficult to find American cars as far back as the mid 1980s that handled very well, but generally were let down in every other measure so they still weren't very revered. The C4 Corvette in general is a very good example.



The only reason it was mentioned as it was the first directly comparable example that came to mind of your propensity to misunderstand the word "facts" to mean "statements that are convenient to act as if they are true."



Actually, since I grew up reading all three of the major American automotive magazines and saw how frequently those supposedly favored American cars came dead last in test after test after test, I'm going to chalk this up as being another "fact."



I'd rather look at reviews from an actual journalism source rather than an entertainment one if I'm using it in an argument.


The muscle car era was in the 1960s, so not the most relevant thing to use as a comparison. For that matter, going on from the "fact" above, most of the time American car magazines hated those cars so fondly remembered today; especially as the cars got poorer and poorer as the decade came to a close.


So the main reason the R5 doesn't count is because to get it to fit they removed the rear seats that the Vision VW also doesn't have; and the massive intake vents right behind the rear door which the Vision VW does have?


That reminds me:

Wish I had remembered that sooner. So front engined it hurts.




Ah ha! The decisive evidence of the thing that no one was ever arguing against! Congratulations?


Though it's rather moot now that you already admitted that they do look similar. And that you spent all that time trying to find a cutaway of that but still refused to acknowledge that the GT by Citroen didn't have an engine at all in its original design.

Yawn. Seriously, you bore me. Discussing the same all over and over again. Stop. I have explained myself enough, and if you dont agree, whatever. Case closed.

Every post you make makes you look even more ignorant than the last. Countless people have explained this to you and yet you continue to ignore them because you're too obsessed with the false correlation between drivetrain layout and the design of a concept car.

None of this changes the fact that the true argument here is whether or not the Citroen GT looks like the VW VGT (which it does, in many ways, look similar).

But you keep saying that these cars don't 'look' the same because they have different drivetrains, which makes no sense at all. They don't look identical, but they look similar. The drivetrain doesn't change this in any way whatsoever.

Whatever. The OP said they look extremely similar and I said they dont, and I still say it. If you also disagree, its ok, but you wont change my opinion, so dont keep on trying.

 

[KinLM]

Yawn. Seriously, you bore me. Discussing the same all over and over again. Stop. I have explained myself enough, and if you dont agree, whatever. Case closed.



Whatever. The OP said they look extremely similar and I said they dont, and I still say it. If you also disagree, its ok, but you wont change my opinion, so dont keep on trying.

Not trying to change your opinion necessarily, because looks are subjective. Just saying that you're basing your opinion on factors which have no correlation to looks. 👍

 

[scholesy1899]

How is it you can't detach drivetrain layout and a cars innards, to pure exterior design? The aesthetics of a car.

Curves, lines, grilles, wheel arches, stance, rake, attitude it conveys, roofline etc etc etc.

I wouldn't say it's mutually exclusive.

To deny even the similarities of both cars high sided chopped roof look....as someone stated earlier you are blind.

 

[Tornado]

Whatever. The OP said they look extremely similar and I said they dont, and I still say it. If you also disagree, its ok, but you wont change my opinion, so dont keep on trying.

Your opinion isn't the issue. If you don't think they look similar, that's fine. Your attempt to justify it by essentially making up reasoning, then claiming that reasoning is a "fact" and therefore people can't say otherwise, is.



That the closest you ever come to providing any impartial validation for when you state one of those facts and are questioned about them is a dismissive "I'm not going to bother with you anymore" is simply a cherry on top by that point.

 

[Azure Flare]

Its a front engined, 4WD as I said.

Every car has a driver, he tends to have weight on him. The seating position is key for weight balance, thats why today's DTM cars have the driver sitting waaaaay far back in the car.

See how far back the driver sits relative to the dashboard?

 

[synchromesh]

I like them all! The Bimmer, Mercedes, Volkswagen and Mitsubishi all look unique and the fact that the companies even participated really counts. They could have just said "screw you we're not going to waste our time for a computer game". But they didn't. And the companies did a very good job. 👍

 

[FiftyBelowZero]

[deleted because of excessive cringe]