Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.

[Joel]

Hardly. Clean low mileage F-bodies are 15k. Clean low mileage C5's are 20k. I could have gotten a C5 but chose the practicality of the F-body

So you made the same decision as a Boxster owner.

 

[McLaren]

View attachment 130201

The car itself isn't pointless, but the pickup truck doors are.

The car was meant as a 2+2. Back doors = easier access, thus not pointless.

View attachment 130202
Only existed as a road car so it could be used in NASCAR.

Pretty sure this existed as the 6th generation model with some NASCAR-influenced cues.

The Cayman is pointless for two reasons:

It's a Boxster with a hard roof. Why not just put a folding metal roof on the Boxster and tune up the engines?

Porsche could have made it more powerful and better than the 911, but they didn't. The Cayman wasn't designed to the best of Porsche's ability, and that bothers me.

Because it allowed the Cayman's chassis to be stiffer from having a fixed roof. And it should be obvious why it wasn't made more powerful.

 

[MrWednesday]

View attachment 130202

Only existed as a road car so it could be used in NASCAR.

I see them fairly regularly, and that type of coupe has a very long history in production from American automakers (also see the Ford Thunderbird over most of its history). The only aspect of it that doesn't fit is the front-wheel drive.

 

[Zenith]

The Cayman is pointless for two reasons:

It's a Boxster with a hard roof.

Because stiffness.

Why not just put a folding metal roof on the Boxster

Because stiffness.

and tune up the engines?

Because the Boxster doesn't need more power.

Porsche could have made it more powerful and better than the 911, but they didn't.

Pro Tip: Jeremy Clarkson is a poor source of auto opinions.

Porsche could not make the Cayman better than the 911. If you had even the slightest knowledge about how fast and well tuned 911's are you wouldn't be saying that.

The Cayman wasn't designed to the best of Porsche's ability, and that bothers me.

Not true, also does not render the car pointless.

 

[homeforsummer]

The 6 GranCoupe in particular baffles me. It's nothing more than a slightly better looking 5 series with a sloping roofline, so why not make that the 5 series instead, and get rid of the actual sedan? Audi and Mercedes, with the A7 and the CLS, at least offered something desirable, something different.

I have to say, I've thought along similar lines. Ditto 4GC and the 3-Series, VW CC and the Passat, and the CLS and E-Class.

None of the stylish ones really sacrifice much in the way of usability to the regular versions, so why not make the stylish ones the regular ones? It's why I'd hesitate to call the new 4-Series Gran Coupe pointless, because I kinda prefer it to every other 3-Series and 4-Series.

Quite looking forward to the 2GC for the same reason.

As much I think I may be the only one that likes this car, since D:SF, heeeeere's the Cygnet!

Pointless at full price, definitely. But I'm intrigued to see how far the price of these come down when used, because whatever negative attributes have the concept of a city car with an Aston Martin-quality interior quite appeals.

Never understood the even smaller compact crossovers...

This also includes their sports versions... I understand that crossovers are the current fad, but compact crossovers don't make much sense compared to their normal compact siblings.

I dunno actually. Some of the ones in Europe make me think twice. When the Juke came out its only equivalent over here was the Micra, and the Juke is infinitely better than the Micra. Given the choice of Peugeot 208 and 2008, the crossover (the 2008) is really the better car - handles no less well, only costs a tiny bit more, but much more practical. Renault Captur would make me think twice about a Clio too.

Harder to justify something like an X1 over a 1-Series (or even a 3er Touring), but then the X1 has grown on me quite a bit and now looks less contrived than many cars in BMW's range. And in the UK at least when the X1 was released you couldn't get an AWD 3-Series, so if you wanted that aspect then the X1 made some sense.

Only existed as a road car so it could be used in NASCAR.

You're justifying its pointlessness by explaining its point?

It's a Boxster with a hard roof. Why not just put a folding metal roof on the Boxster and tune up the engines?

And here you're justifying the Cayman's pointlessness by suggesting ways to make the Boxster on its own heavier, more expensive and uglier (folding metal roofs always ruin the deck lid line)?

In other words, you're effectively saying: "Why build the Cayman when we can make the Boxster worse instead?"...

 

[Doog]

BMW's range is getting harder and harder to understand, and I think they have completely missed the point with some of their models. Like the 3&5GT, which are less practical, uglier and pricier than the 3&5 Touring. And the 4&6GC, which are 4 door versions of 2 door versions of 4 door cars.

The 6 GranCoupe in particular baffles me. It's nothing more than a slightly better looking 5 series with a sloping roofline, so why not make that the 5 series instead, and get rid of the actual sedan? Audi and Mercedes, with the A7 and the CLS, at least offered something desirable, something different.

Don't the four door 'coupes' typically seat four, rather than five like a conventional sedan? For some, that extra seat is reason enough to stick with the regular model.

 

[homeforsummer]

Don't the four door 'coupes' typically seat four, rather than five like a conventional sedan? For some, that extra seat is reason enough to stick with the regular model.

Good point. Though I have to wonder how many people really ever take five people in vehicles like that. I could probably count the number of times on both hands that I've carried five people in a car and someone has had to use that raised, uncomfortable, un-sculpted centre seat.

 

[Doog]

Good point. Though I have to wonder how many people really ever take five people in vehicles like that. I could probably count the number of times on both hands that I've carried five people in a car and someone has had to use that raised, uncomfortable, un-sculpted centre seat.

It's not the actual practicality that matters, it's the illusion that matters. People don't like to feeling limited in what they can do with their vehicle. It's why there's so many four-door trucks and seven-seat crossovers on the road today. That third row may not actually hold life-sized children, but it's better than not having a third row at all.

 

[homeforsummer]

I suppose it depends what you're looking for in a car. My impression was that some of the ones with sculpted, individual rear seats rather than a bench were actually gaining popularity because they seemed more exclusive.

In other words, the illusion thing applies there too - you may never use the rear seats and may lose some practicality, but they look more fancy. Works both ways, really.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Pointless automobiles? Everything that is placed between this:

and this:

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

why are these pointless?

I'd disagree on both. The A7 gets a pass on style alone - comfortably one of the best-looking Audis - but to justify it further it's an A6 with a hatchback, which is more practical than an A6 with a boot and more striking than the Avant.

The A5 Sportback, again, is a more practical variant of the vehicle it's based on. The point of each, really, is to offer variety to the customer without costing the company huge amounts in development costs, since under the skin all the components are already widely used.

Each also sells pretty well, which is more than can be said for say, the BMW 5GT.

If you want a executive 4 door saloon car, you buy an A6. Thats practical enough with its boot space etc. I've been in the back of an A7 and the space inside is pitiful because of that sloping roof line. As for it's looks, it's not that nice. If you really need a bigger space than the A6 you go for an A8.

If you're going to buy an A5 then you get the 2 door as that's the only sport coupe Audi make -bar the TT- why would you buy a 4 door version when the initial idea of buying one in the first place is to have a 2 door coupe sports car? In the same way that someone goes and buys a 4 door BMW 4 series. You've then bought a 4 door version of a 2 door version of a 4 door car. Why? Same goes for those 3 and 5 series GTs. They're pretty pointless too.

I'm probably going to regret this. But explain yourself!

 

[TheCracker]

Don't the four door 'coupes' typically seat four, rather than five like a conventional sedan? For some, that extra seat is reason enough to stick with the regular model.

The back seats in an Audi A6 and the ones in the A7 are exactly the same. The only difference being a little more headroom in the A6. It's the same story with the A4 and the A5 Sportback. Unless you are regularly transporting 6+foot rear passengers over long distances, i see little point in the A6 and A4 saloons now, the four-door coupe versions are so much better looking.

 

[Zenith]

Pointless automobiles? Everything that is placed between this:
and this:

I assume we're ignoring Cabriolets and Targas, since those obviously have a point.

What if I want an AWD that doesn't cost $200,000 and doesn't need to get to 60 in under 3 seconds? (Carrera 4)

What if I want a sportier version of the RR Carrera but I still want to comfortably daily drive the car? (Carrera S)

These seem like reasonable "points" for other 911's to exist.

 

[D.Kadettdriver]

The Be Bop was rather pointless, imho. A shorter, less partical version of the Kangoo that somehow was far more expensive than the regular sized one.

 

[TheCracker]

You want the reduced practicality of a small hatchback based coupe? You want it to look like a generic 3-door hatchback on one side and a dull 5-door hatchback on the other? - Here's your car, madam.

 

[Sage Ages]

 

[Tornado]

It's like people aren't even trying to mask their attempt to post cars they don't like.

 

[sparkytooth]

An LP-640 in a suit that's more than twice as expensive. Thankfully, only 42 (Roadster/Coupe) were ever made and it's slightly prettier, but pointless in my opinion.

 

[JMoney]

Pro Tip: Jeremy Clarkson is a poor source of auto opinions.

Everyone bashes Jeremy Clarkson because he is so opinionated that he disagrees with everyone. I'm sure he knows more about cars than most of us here, and he has every right to an opinion.

 

[Adamgp]

Ford C Max:

 

[Liquid]

Everyone bashes Jeremy Clarkson because he is so opinionated that he disagrees with everyone. I'm sure he knows more about cars than most of us here, and he has every right to an opinion.

Treating what he says as a verbatim endorsement is dangerous. His journalism style has always been tongue in cheek and he insists that people do take him too seriously.

Y'know, because everyone knows Rover are absolutely awful and never did anything right ever. Because Top Gear said so.

Oh, err... pretty much any compacty crossovery SUV sort of monstrosity. I don't like how every niche must be filled, but stupid people will stupidly spend stupid money on stupid things they don't need. Stupid.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

This thread looks a lot like a "Post cars you don't like" thread. Almost all of the cars here have a point. Whether you like, understand, or can tolerate that point is another matter.

 

[TheCracker]

Everyone bashes Jeremy Clarkson because he is so opinionated that he disagrees with everyone. I'm sure he knows more about cars than most of us here, and he has every right to an opinion.

He does have every right to his opinion, but as his opinions are for entertainment reasons rather than as an objective review of the car in question, his opinions are rightly taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Liquid]

This thread looks a lot like a "Post cars you don't like" thread. Almost all of the cars here have a point. Whether you like, understand, or can tolerate that point is another matter.

As long as you can back it up...

For example, Mazda MX-5 NA

Great car, love it. And it's thanks to Gran Turismo but... all those variations? LE, V-Edition, J-Edition and so on. I could have chosen Skyline, of course, but that would have been too obvious.

However, I will throw in the Honda NSX Type S Zero for the same reasons.

 

[TheCracker]

Fanboy meltdown in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Liquid]

As I said, I love both of those cars but come on, too much fiddling.

 

[niky]

Everyone bashes Jeremy Clarkson because he is so opinionated that he disagrees with everyone. I'm sure he knows more about cars than most of us here, and he has every right to an opinion.

Clarkson is all about entertainment. He bashes the Hummer H2 to pieces (rightfully) as a terrible car. Then turns around and buys one. Does the same thing with the Ford GT, which he bought.

He says and writes wildly contradictory things in different articles and TV segments. He's a buffoon. A comedian.

He's also a damn good motoring journalist, and writes some insightful things, sometimes.

The trick is to know when he's being serious and when he's being trite. Tip: If it's funny, he's usually being trite.

-

Been mulling, but I can't name a single car that doesn't have an actual point. Most cars do have a unique selling proposition, which is how they get to go on sale. And that includes cars like *shudder* the Murano Cabriolet. Whose only point is to earn Nissan second place in terms of convertible SUV sales behind the Jeep Wrangler.

 

[JMoney]

Oh, err... pretty much any compacty crossovery SUV sort of monstrosity. I don't like how every niche must be filled, but stupid people will stupidly spend stupid money on stupid things they don't need. Stupid.

And now we have reached the point at which I leave the thread because of the lack of intelligent posts...

 

[motortrend]

This thread should be renamed the "cool car thread" Because That's What i mostly see (some exceptions of course). I guess the more useless the cooler

 

[-Fred-]

If the Porsche Cayman is a pointless car, then every car out there that's available as a convertible and a coupe is also pointless. It's a Boxter with a roof, except Porsche can't call it a Boxster Coupe because the name is a play on the words roadster (what it is) and boxer (its engine configuration), so Cayman it is.

And if anyone thinks folding metal roof = roof that's actually part of the chassis in terms of structural integrity and chassis dynamics, you're very much mistaken.