Tasteful Modifications Thread

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 6,670 comments
  • 579,753 views
I said my opinion, I edited the message as soon as I posted it..
 
Clark
I said my opinion, I edited the message as soon as I posted it..
Click to expand...
Yeah well, there's no point in telling other people that the cars they post aren't tasteful. I post the cars in this thread that I deem tasteful. I couldn't give a rats ass about whether other members find them tasteful or not. Everyone's definition of a "tasteful mod" differs, so the "not tasteful" or "I dislike it" comments I see in this thread serve no purpose, other than maybe to score a few cheap likes.
 
I said Ew as I’m within my right to post how I feel about things. It didn’t attack anybody personally or say anything offensive.

As others have pointed out I feel like a lot of these cars should be in the imports thread.
 
Cheating again - my car again. Only two mods so far - colour coded front chin spoiler and black OE alloys (14 inches, baby!) from a different 240.

IMG_20190804_123702.jpg
 
GranTurNismo
Yeah well, there's no point in telling other people that the cars they post aren't tasteful. I post the cars in this thread that I deem tasteful. I couldn't give a rats ass about whether other members find them tasteful or not. Everyone's definition of a "tasteful mod" differs, so the "not tasteful" or "I dislike it" comments I see in this thread serve no purpose, other than maybe to score a few cheap likes.
Click to expand...
As someone who has been harangued for making opinions abundantly clear, I maintain that posting pictures of a modified vehicle here is an assertion that one believes the modification(s) therein are tasteful, something that they have every right to do, and others should have just as much right to disagree. This act in itself doesn't constitute an attack.

I've actually said this before. On the very same page that I said it, you (albeit on your old, banned account) exercised what I maintain is your right to express your opinion by saying something very similar* to what has apparently so bothered you on this occasion. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you probably didn't say it to get likes, cheap or otherwise, but you got one just the same. If you have a look, you just might recognize your benefactor.

The horse is dead; can we stop beating it?

*Edit to quote the post mentioned:

Turbo
All sorts of nope. Too low, rims are colossal, paint color is unfitting, et cetera.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TexRex
As someone who has been harangued for making opinions abundantly clear, I maintain that posting pictures of a modified vehicle here is an assertion that one believes the modification(s) therein are tasteful, something that they have every right to do, and others should have just as much right to disagree. This act in itself doesn't constitute an attack.

I've actually said this before. On the very same page that I said it, you (albeit on your old, banned account) exercised what I maintain is your right to express your opinion by saying something very similar* to what has apparently so bothered you on this occasion. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you probably didn't say it to get likes, cheap or otherwise, but you got one just the same. If you have a look, you just might recognize your benefactor.

The horse is dead; can we stop beating it?

*Edit to quote the post mentioned:
Click to expand...
But what's the point of bringing up a post of me on my old account from nearly two years ago criticizing another member's post for not being tasteful, just to paint me as hypocritical. Do you reject the fact that I can evolve and mature past that? Yes, back then I thought I had the right to let other members know that the cars they posted aren't "tasteful" enough, and now I've realized that doing so is pointless and of poor taste as well. Part of the reason why I don't do that anymore is because of the negative responses from other members, rightfully so.

It sort of seems that if I criticize a member's post for not living up to the threads standard's, I should be called out for doing that (which I should, yes), but if I post something that seems "distasteful" to another member, I should just accept their criticism because "everyone has their own opinion" or whatnot. Double standard much?
 
 
That interior is just perfect, until you see the gearknob. I know it’s got an S54 and everything but the gearknob looks a bit out of place.
 
I've seen a wide body Elise before - had the front wings from an Exige Mk.1 and it looked very good - but that one is on another level again. Superb.
 
OKAY. As much they are close to Z4's, this is ****ing sexy!
60cUHwRP.jpg

LmdoClEz.jpg


Just heeeeello there!
Pa3N1FCR.jpg


****ING HELL. 5.0l Coyote V8 from Roush Performance. 500bhp, 475 lb/ft torque, with a LR Defender MT82 six-speed manual gearbox mated to a Ford 8” back axle on a flippin' MG.
DQjSrQX0.jpg

bQnCsV3D.jpg

UqkenVEc.jpg


LuaKjzff.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think David Lee is blowing smoke with the claim that it's an F40 engine. I think this for a couple of reasons:

1) I'm given to understand that there's a fair bit of commonality between the F120 and earlier F106 on which it's based, such as bore spacing and basic architecture, but the castings are very different. The F106 has a skirt at the rear of the block to house the flywheel and clutch assemblies, and then the drop gear assembly bolts onto that to deliver power to the gear stack beneath the motor. It's fairly apparent this Dino uses this configuration due to the engine orientation and its location laterally; plus the configuration was borrowed from the Dino and merely bolstered when developing those V8 cars. The F120 is a shorter casting and the flywheel and clutch are housed within the longitudinal transaxle bellhousing. Of course there's nothing to say the F120 can't be modified to work in the F106's place, but why go to the trouble and expense when it's worth also noting the stuff folks like Bob Norwood do with the F106. The F40 is special as an unmodified package but its power is easily eclipsed.

2) It's David Lee.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
I think David Lee is blowing smoke with the claim that it's an F40 engine. I think this for a couple of reasons:

1) I'm given to understand that there's a fair bit of commonality between the F120 and earlier F106 on which it's based, such as bore spacing and basic architecture, but the castings are very different. The F106 has a skirt at the rear of the block to house the flywheel and clutch assemblies, and then the drop gear assembly bolts onto that to deliver power to the gear stack beneath the motor. It's fairly apparent this Dino uses this configuration due to the engine orientation and its location laterally; plus the configuration was borrowed from the Dino and merely bolstered when developing those V8 cars. The F120 is a shorter casting and the flywheel and clutch are housed within the longitudinal transaxle bellhousing. Of course there's noting the stuff folks like Bob Norwood do with the F106. The F40 is special as an unmodified package but its power is easily eclipsed.

2) It's David Lee.
Click to expand...
So it's not a tasteful mod because of this then?
 

Similar threads

SVX
  • Locked
The Simple Tasteful Modifications Thread
Replies
2
Views
984
daan
daan
Snikle
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 2004-2007 Volvo S60 R
Replies
11
Views
2K
Joey D
Joey D
RACECAR
Gran Turismo Undocumented Changes Thread (Update 1.48)
2
Replies
40
Views
10K
wheelhp
wheelhp
Slash
  • Locked
Tasteful Mods
Replies
3
Views
3K
Omnis
Omnis
I-M-Pulsive
I-M-Pulsive livery thread
Replies
1
Views
803
I-M-Pulsive
I-M-Pulsive

Latest Posts

Back