Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.

[niky]

@motortrend - Well, sometimes, absolutely.

And then, sometimes, not:

It was the concept everyone liked but no one wanted. Sales were so dismal, that they only built it for two years, and spent four years selling off what miserable few they did make.

Then there's a car that's technically not pointless, being a halo car for VW, but which certainly missed the mark... and the market, for that matter:

Supposedly wonderful car. But nobody wanted one with a VW badge on the hood. Proof that the luxury car market makes about as much sense as the Tourbillon market (those big pieces of man-jewelry that cost a thousand times more than quartz watches and which are a hundred times less accurate).

Disclaimer, I drool over watch magazines, anyway. Uselessness is sometimes very, very cool.

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

You often get out of a thread what you put into it. Please, put something good into it.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you want a boring executive 4 door saloon car, you buy an A6.

That's more like it.

Thats practical enough with its boot space etc.

Practicality comes in various forms. But a regular boot is rarely as practical as a tailgate.

I've been in the back of an A7 and the space inside is pitiful because of that sloping roof line.

Didn't seem so to me. Doesn't for reviewers, either - little harder to get into, but easily spacious enough in the back once you're in.

As for it's looks, it's not that nice.

This we call "personal preference". But I know very few people who don't prefer the A7 to the A6.

If you really need a bigger space than the A6 you go for an A8.

This I cannot understand. Audi's range is tedious enough without wanting it to be a vast lineup of regular dull saloon cars. God forbid they do something interesting like a fastback rather than stick the A4's silhouette in a photocopier and turn it to 110% and 120% for the A6 and A8. Or 90% for the A3 saloon.

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?

Because:

a) The A5 isn't a sports car. And
b) The whole idea of buying an A5 Sportback in the first place is that it isn't a two-door coupe. If customers wanted the coupe, they'd buy the coupe. If they want the Sportback, they buy the Sportback. Which, incidentally, is to the A4 as the A7 is to the A6 - a sleeker yet more practical (tailgate) variant.

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.

And this I covered in my previous post. Yes, if you reduce everything to numbers then the 4-Series GC is pointless. But if you put the 3-Series and 4-Series variants next to each other, to me the 4 GC is the most appealing - it's less dull to look at than the regular 4er coupe, but more interesting than the regular 3 series. To an extent, even the 3 GT can be justified in similar terms.

The only one I genuinely struggle with is the 5 GT, and that's mainly because it takes the concept of making a sleek fastback and messes it up, as the 5 GT is anything but sleek.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

That's more like it.

Practicality comes in various forms. But a regular boot is rarely as practical as a tailgate.

Didn't seem so to me. Doesn't for reviewers, either - little harder to get into, but easily spacious enough in the back once you're in.

This we call "personal preference". But I know very few people who don't prefer the A7 to the A6.

This I cannot understand. Audi's range is tedious enough without wanting it to be a vast lineup of regular dull saloon cars. God forbid they do something interesting like a fastback rather than stick the A4's silhouette in a photocopier and turn it to 110% and 120% for the A6 and A8. Or 90% for the A3 saloon.

Because:

a) The A5 isn't a sports car. And
b) The whole idea of buying an A5 Sportback in the first place is that it isn't a two-door coupe. If customers wanted the coupe, they'd buy the coupe. If they want the Sportback, they buy the Sportback. Which, incidentally, is to the A4 as the A7 is to the A6 - a sleeker yet more practical (tailgate) variant.

And this I covered in my previous post. Yes, if you reduce everything to numbers then the 4-Series GC is pointless. But if you put the 3-Series and 4-Series variants next to each other, to me the 4 GC is the most appealing - it's less dull to look at than the regular 4er coupe, but more interesting than the regular 3 series. To an extent, even the 3 GT can be justified in similar terms.

The only one I genuinely struggle with is the 5 GT, and that's mainly because it takes the concept of making a sleek fastback and messes it up, as the 5 GT is anything but sleek.

Well when I was in the back of that A7, there was very little room for a car of it's size.

You now know someone who prefers the nicer looking A6 to the 7.

Yeah I agree that the A4's silhouette is copied over to the other cars but they aren't exactly dull looking. To me the A5 'sportback' and the A7 just look like they couldn't think of anything new in board meetings. Someone must have said let's make a 4 door version of a 2 door car and they all must have agreed because no one came up with a better idea. I'm surprised there's no 4 door TT or 2 door A8 or even a 'sportback' A9 based on this logic. The A5 is a coupe version of the A4, so if you wanted a car of the A4 size but two doors, you get an A5, if you want an A4 size car with 4 doors, you get an A4.

To me, they just seem irrelevant when there are already cars that are in their market space.
A1 - Supermini
A3 - Hatchback
A4 - 4 Door Family Saloon
A5 - 2 Door Executive Coupe
A6 - 4 Door Executive Saloon
A8 - Dictator's/President's Bulletproof Limo

I just can't understand the logic.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm surprised there's no 4 door TT or 2 door A8 or even a 'sportback' A9 based on this logic.

The A8 doesn't sell in great enough numbers to justify spin-offs (other than a LWB version for some markets). As for the TT, a shooting brake version is still being rumoured.

The A5 is a coupe version of the A4, so if you wanted a car of the A4 size but two doors, you get an A5, if you want an A4 size car with 4 doors, you get an A4.

I just can't understand the logic.

Evidently not, but I did just explain it above.

You're simplifying it too much. What if I want the A5's style, but the A4's practicality? Neither the A5 nor the A4 is suitable, in that instance. Do I buy an A5 and curse the fact people have to clamber into the back, or do I go for the A4 and feel a bit depressed every time the A5 with its sleek silhouette goes past? Neither, of course - since the Sportback exists.

You're essentially saying, "These are the two things people want. Choose between them". Like offering someone who likes bananas an apple and an orange instead.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

The A8 doesn't sell in great enough numbers to justify spin-offs (other than a LWB version for some markets). As for the TT, a shooting brake version is still being rumoured.



Evidently not, but I did just explain it above.

You're simplifying it too much. What if I want the A5's style, but the A4's practicality? Neither the A5 nor the A4 is suitable, in that instance. Do I buy an A5 and curse the fact people have to clamber into the back, or do I go for the A4 and feel a bit depressed every time the A5 with its sleek silhouette goes past? Neither, of course - since the Sportback exists.

You're essentially saying, "These are the two things people want. Choose between them". Like offering someone who likes bananas an apple and an orange instead.

A shooting brake TT? Why? Would ruin it's looks IMO.

Yeah, why would you want to complicate things? It's like having the 13 levels of Porsche 911 (base, S, C4S, Turbo, Turbo S etc)
I thought that manufacturers couldn't afford to take gambles these days and introduce cars like this where there is practically a car that exists for it. Plus if you're wanting an A5 'sportback' because of it's looks and if Audi didn't offer it, you go and find another car you like the look of. Simple.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

A shooting brake TT? Why? Would ruin it's looks IMO.

Yeah, why would you want to complicate things? It's like having the 13 levels of Porsche 911 (base, S, C4S, Turbo, Turbo S etc)
I thought that manufacturers couldn't afford to take gambles these days and introduce cars like this where there is practically a car that exists for it. Plus if you're wanting an A5 'sportback' because of it's looks and if Audi didn't offer it, you go and find another car you like the look of. Simple.

Thing is, it's not a gamble. People will buy them, they are attractive and practical at the same time. Consumers in general are very odd.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

Thing is, it's not a gamble. People will buy them, they are attractive and practical at the same time. Consumers in general are very odd.

The gamble I'm mainly thinking of is if the consumer reacts like me? 'An A7? So what's the point of the A6 then?'

But then again there are people who would get suckered into that. I have a 30 year old car, what do I know?

 

[Sage Ages]

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

No. I don't understand the point of it. There is already the Versa and other hatchbacks from Nissan.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The gamble I'm mainly thinking of is if the consumer reacts like me? 'An A7? So what's the point of the A6 then?'

But then again there are people who would get suckered into that. I have a 30 year old car, what do I know?

But you said yourself that you're not the consumer

 

[Tornado]

No. I don't understand the point of it. There is already the Versa and other hatchbacks from Nissan.

Compare this:

To this:

The Nissan Versa was a car you bought because you needed a new car and couldn't pay any more than $12,000 to get one. Nissan even advertised it to that effect. That tells you a good amount about how desirable it was. The Nissan Cube was Nissan going after the market that Toyota basically abandoned with the second generation Scion x. The fact that Kia chopped them off at the legs with their own attempt to go after the market that Toyota walked away from isn't Nissan's fault, nor does it make the Cube "pointless."







Let's put it another way:

Those two cars were even closer to each other than the Versa and Cube were. Which one do you think people actually bought?

 

[MagpieRacer]

Renault Wind
Twingo based convertible? Pointless?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Pointless automobiles? Everything that is placed between this:

(911 Lineup)

So, if we're going by price, does that count the GT3? And let's be honest, with Porsche being the most profitable car company out there, they've obviously got some idea about how to decide on a lineup.

Ford C Max:

I don't see these as pointless at all; minivans are anything but mini these days, and judging by the success of the Mazda 5 (a 3 with more practicality), Ford was wise to bring this over here.

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

That appears to be an Acura, which would make it the uber-rare Zanardi edition. Which is certainly cool... and pretty much the closest thing we ever got to an S Zero over here anyways...

A shooting brake TT? Why? Would ruin it's looks IMO.

The TT's iconic looks died years ago with the MK II anyways. It's not a coincidence that Audi has used shooting brakes to tease both that and the MK III, though...

Yeah, why would you want to complicate things? It's like having the 13 levels of Porsche 911 (base, S, C4S, Turbo, Turbo S etc)

Because people are fickle when they're spending thousands of dollars on a hunk of metal that'll be in their drive for the next few years. More options aren't a bad thing from a customer perspective.

I thought that manufacturers couldn't afford to take gambles these days and introduce cars like this where there is practically a car that exists for it.

They can't, but these sorts of gambles cost a fraction of something like the Solstice/Sky roadsters cost GM, since it's taking a lot of pre-existing parts to fashion something new.

Plus if you're wanting an A5 'sportback' because of it's looks and if Audi didn't offer it, you go and find another car you like the look of. Simple.

Now look at that from Audi's perspective.

EDIT: Oh yeah, my vote:

A desperate shoe-string attempt to use up some extra VX220 Turbo bits lying around and provide a "more luxurious" Lotus before the Evora came on line. Nobody wants a fancy Elise, Lotus... who put you up to this? Was it Bahar?!

 

[Joey D]

As with others are saying though, a vehicle isn't completely pointless as long as it makes the company money. However, I'll look at this without the profitability in mind.

The biggest offender I can think of are those 9 million "special edition" Mustangs Ford went through a couple years ago. A Mustang with a stripe and a badge isn't special, nor is it rare when you make thousands of them and sell them to whoever.

 

[Slash]

As with others are saying though, a vehicle isn't completely pointless as long as it makes the company money. However, I'll look at this without the profitability in mind.

The biggest offender I can think of are those 9 million "special edition" Mustangs Ford went through a couple years ago. A Mustang with a stripe and a bad isn't special, nor is it rare when you make thousands of them and sell them to whoever.

Not even just those, but all of the "special" Mustangs that weren't Shelbys, anniversaries or Bosses.

 

[McLaren]

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.
Not true, also does not render the car pointless.

That actually is true. When the Cayman was first released, it was highly praised to the point where most journalists came to the conclusion that the only reason it wasn't made even better was because it would step on the toes of the 911. The Cayman's layout gave it a lot more potential, as was eventually evident by the '08 Cayman & R.

It's the worst-kept secret in the automotive world: Porsche doesn't want its midengine Cayman to post better performance numbers than the vaunted rear-engine 911. Correction, Porsche won't let the Cayman drop-kick its bigger, more illustrious brother. Ever.

So when we asked Dr. Martin Constien, team leader for engine development, the difference between the 2014 Porsche Cayman S's 3.4-liter 325-horsepower flat-6 and the base 911's identically sized but 25-hp-lustier mill, he said: "Basically, nothing. They're the same."

"So...why the different power numbers?"

"Because the Cayman cannot outperform the 911. It's our entry-level car," he said with German matter-of-factness. Like we were idiots for even asking such a stupid question.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Which means... time for lots of aftermarket mods, gentlemen.

Heck, you could put the 911 Turbo's or GT2's engine in that car and have a pocket supercar... and that's before further upgrading.

 

[Azure Flare]

'Dat ass.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Following the X6, the X4.

Also, there's sports 4x4's such as the;
Cayenne Turbo and Turbo S

X5M/X6M

supercharged V8 Range Rover Sport

and ML63 AMG that join the realms of complete pointlessness

Maybe it's me wanting half of these especially the Merc, but how are these pointless...more so if an adequate answer can be given (though subjective), how are they any more pointless than say the entire c class or 3 series that could probably all pass in the real world with 1 or 2 less cars in each class.

Surprised the Mercedes R63 AMG didn't get a mention yet. Because who says to themselves 'You know, I need something to haul the kids, but it also needs to have at least 500 HP'?

View attachment 130016 View attachment 130017

I do, hence my love for the AMG E63 Wagon and CTS-V Wagon... Do you not have kids? If you do, do you not like to hear them laugh as you stomp on the gas?

I don't see how yours are pointless either.

I agree with @xXKingJoshXx those are pointless simply because they are luxury trucks that lose their sense of what a truck should be doing as built for. All you get with an Escalade or Mark LT is a Chevy or Ford pick up with a ton of non-needed luxuries (that you can mostly get in the lower priced core model) for a bloated price tag.

If you are buying luxury buy it because it stands alone, not because the company wants to sell trucks to ignorant people who don't like seeing a Chevy or Ford emblem and can't brag on the golf course if they did have one.

Car may be decent, but whenever I see these around, they're always driven by middle aged businessmen with dark shades and a Bluetooth in their ear. Might as well drive around with a sign saying "I couldn't afford a 911"...

And sadly that is the point of these cars, it's saying to the world "I make about 55-70k a year and the 911 (even base level which isn't that much more) is just too much"

 

[Slash]

Its for status; that's all it is. Trucks should be powerful yet very simple machines that can be beat to hell and back to with no risk of it petering out on you. New trucks don't do that. All they are is status icons that can tow.

 

[niky]

Which means... time for lots of aftermarket mods, gentlemen.

Heck, you could put the 911 Turbo's or GT2's engine in that car and have a pocket supercar... and that's before further upgrading.

Pointless. The swap apparently costs more than simply buying a whole and perfectly usable 911 with the same motor.

 

[RCKakashi14]

I like the Porsche Cayenne, but I question the need of a Turbo or Turbo S model. Or BMW adding M versions of the X5 and X6. I find them pointless.

SUVs are meant to be practical, with its large size that can fit a family and their stuff for a long trip. And you don't use 500 horsepower all the time. You don't even need 200 horsepower to get you from A to B. SUVs are useful in getting you out from terrain or snow.


Plus, they don't match the dynamics of a track car for them to be enjoyed on race tracks.


Just my opinion...

 

[Slash]

SUVs should be a simple log hauler not a grocery getter. Ex Jeep CJs

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

View attachment 130202

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

No it didn't...unless you want to make that argument for the Gen 1 version

How is that pointless?

Yeah rich girls that love to party find this an essential piece to their prom night, grad night, the off chance they pass college before being world famous drunks, bachelorette parties and on and on

Its for status; that's all it is. Trucks should be powerful yet very simple machines that can be beat to hell and back to with no risk of it petering out on you. New trucks don't do that. All they are is status icons that can tow.

Exactly, someone said they at least can be used for towing still, I can count on one hand how many I've actually seen towing something. The reason you don't is because it's luxury over being practical.

Pointless. The swap apparently costs more than simply buying a whole and perfectly usable 911 with the same motor.

It's W&N what do you expect, it's more of fantasy than real car know how at the end of the day. (With him)

I like the Porsche Cayenne, but I question the need of a Turbo or Turbo S model. Or BMW adding M versions of the X5 and X6. I find them pointless.

SUVs are meant to be practical, with its large size that can fit a family and their stuff for a long trip. And you don't use 500 horsepower all the time. You don't even need 200 horsepower to get you from A to B. SUVs are useful in getting you out from terrain or snow.


Plus, they don't match the dynamics of a track car for them to be enjoyed on race tracks.


Just my opinion...

Though I agree with what you're getting at, the one thing I don't is the BMW portion. They are useful all terrain and some people use them for it and they are built for it, they also have very practical diesel variants. European SUV ideas are very different than American ideas on the matter, and really European SUVs are small or even coming close to cross-over range than actual SUV by the American standard. The Japanese only build big American SUVs because they know they'll sell here more so than anywhere else.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Not quite - remember the Cayman is MR while the 911 is RR/R-AWD. Ignoring Porsche's history for a moment, having the engine between the axles is better for handling than is having it hung out behind the rear axle. So, having the GT2 engine in a Cayman would be, theoretically, the ultimate Porsche.

 

[Azure Flare]

So, having the GT2 engine in a Cayman would be, theoretically, the ultimate Porsche.

Theoretically of course.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not quite - remember the Cayman is MR while the 911 is RR/R-AWD. Ignoring Porsche's history for a moment, having the engine between the axles is better for handling than is having it hung out behind the rear axle. So, having the GT2 engine in a Cayman would be, theoretically, the ultimate Porsche.

It's better sometimes not all the time, it's not universal and you can actually compare the 991 911 with the 3.4 H6 to the Cayman 3.4 and there isn't a massive improvement even though the cayman is suppose to be more nimble. Also the dimensions would probably have to change for a 3.8 twin turbo in a cayman which could hurt it and then it'd need to not be RWD

And since Azure beat me to it you're basically asking for a baby version or a version all of it's own in Porsche Hyper Car realm (e.g. GT1 911)

Basically my favorite road going Porsche next to the GT3 of most years.

Theoretically of course.

You just won the internets

 

[AudiMan2011]

Maybe it's me wanting half of these especially the Merc, but how are these pointless...more so if an adequate answer can be given (though subjective), how are they any more pointless than say the entire c class or 3 series that could probably all pass in the real world with 1 or 2 less cars in each class.

I find powerful sports SUVs pointless particularly in the UK because the diesel variants (yes the Cayenne also has a diesel) are already good enough for many people. Also with petrol prices being as high as they are here in the UK, buying a £70k+, 500hp petrol SUV doesn't seem like a sensible choice.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I find powerful sports SUVs pointless particularly in the UK because the diesel variants (yes the Cayenne also has a diesel) are already food enough for many people. Also with petrol prices being as high as they are here in the UK, buying a £70k+, 500hp petrol SUV doesn't seem like a sensible choice.

I see now, I know they all have diesel variants but you have to keep in mind, that they are virtually non-existent in the U.S. due to the buyer mentality on Diesel here..

So though over there isn't sensible it is here in a few regards, though I'd rather be able to buy some of these in the other format.

 

[TheCracker]

I find powerful sports SUVs pointless particularly in the UK because the diesel variants (yes the Cayenne also has a diesel) are already food enough for many people. Also with petrol prices being as high as they are here in the UK, buying a £70k+, 500hp petrol SUV doesn't seem like a sensible choice.

👍 Which is why something like 90% of X5's sold in Europe are 3.0ltr diesels.

 

[RACECAR]

Gonna try my hand at this as I have quite a few I don't understand.

Starting with the Mini Clubman:

I find it pointless mainly because there is the Countryman. Why would you want what appears to be just a stretched Mini Cooper for a SUV type vehicle when you have one that's designed to be it in the first place?