Tasteful Modifications Thread

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 6,670 comments
  • 572,923 views
It's finally here.

10857911_10152789066374902_7825815963821960093_n.jpg

...

No.
 
Oh listen (read) to you :lol: of course he has the right to post whatever the heck he wants, as much as I have the right to say it's irrelevant.

I think the relevance of @legacyMACHINE post outweighs that of "look at my favorite time attack car" or "look at my favorite touge wide kit car" which are not tasteful at all and many agree that tasteful has to do with what looks nice in subtle fashion without completely destroying or rearranging the car. The past five pages show things that many other threads cover and this isn't really the thread for it.
 
I think it would actually be better with a proper livery, at least then it does better to pay homage to the car in question.
I think you should not apply a faux-livery to a road car at all, unless it is a homologation special like the F1 GTR.

Which a P1 isn't.

And it would still look better in McLaren's Genesis Blue (as seen in evo #205- where they drive a P1 and F1 together... I'm a subscriber so get it before you mortal fools.)
 
SVX
100% most definitely getting hate for this...
Mhm. ;)


:lol:

Actually I don't despise the Z32. It could use a bit more room for wheel travel for proper flogging but apparently some people like herniated discs.
 
Repost...ish.


As peculiar as it is, it's surely there for a reason. Maybe someone better versed in automotive aerodynamics could expound where I cannot.
I'd venture into the area of this car being function follows form, personally.
 
Oddly enough, authentic GT-Rs of that generation didn't have front overfenders. I'm not sure I'd hack up a virgin one.
C10GT-R.jpg

Yeah, I know that and indeed, I've always found it odd. Heck, I've found it odd that they had overfenders in the first place, look at those rear tires, hilarious :lol:
 
Were they there for homologation purposes?
 

Latest Posts

Back