What cars, in your view, are pointless?
- Thread starter Turbo
- 251 comments
- 20,057 views
- 4,975
- United States
- Stawookie
Why do the Ford Fusion AND the Ford Taurus exist together? They're both four-door sedans aren't they? One of them are pointless in my opinion but I'm not sure which one is. Probably the Fusion. Because the Taurus is available as an SHO with 365 horsepower.
- 5,065
- Fort Worth
- That_sneaky_azN
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
So because Audi makes a smallish hatchback-based coupe no other manufacturer should bother doing the same?
The fact that the RCZ is generally thought of as the better car should give it a reason for existing - as well as being probably cheaper than the TT and is certainly cheaper than the Cayman.
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Indeed. When we tested the RCZ-R a few years back it beat not just the TTS, but also the Alfa 4C, was pretty much on-par with a Nismo 370Z and BMW M235i, and only lost to a Cayman and Exige S (which isn't bad going...). Given it was also significantly cheaper than everything else (at the time, £6k cheaper than the TTS and about £8k less than a basic Cayman - and that's in R form, which was pretty expensive compared to regular RCZs) it's even more favourable.
Having driven a couple of R versions and a diesel, I'd say they're also great cars in isolation. Probably the first modern-era Peugeot that was great, in fact. The RCZ-R in particular is a seriously good performance car - goes like stink, great steering, great gearshift, masses of front-end grip, very good damping (I seem to recall @Famine is a bit of a fan too).
As an aside, Peugeot hasn't made them for over three years now anyway, so the TT's existence has even less bearing on a car that doesn't itself exist any longer.
- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
As the post below yours pointed out, the RCZ is discontinued. Did Peugeot recouped their money? If it was the better car, why isn't it still around like it's then competitors?
I remember they ran them in the Bathurst 12H years back. As I mentioned, wasn't a big hit here in Australia. Did they outsell their competitors in Europe?
Being the better car, did Peugeot see it as "we came, we saw, we kicked its ***!"?
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Probably - it was basically a 308 underneath so the overheads were probably low.
Nobody buys any coupes any more so it's not really surprising that Peugeot hasn't seen fit to replace it. The next TT will likely go to four/five doors - does that mean the TT is pointless too, or is that more an indication of the market itself?
Does a car have to outsell its direct competitors to be worth making? Because that's bad news for anything that isn't a Ford F-Series, Toyota Corolla, Honda Accord, Suzuki Wagon R, Ford Fiesta etc...
How about looking at it this way: The RCZ was a sporty coupe that wasn't an Audi TT, proved that Peugeot could make great cars after a decade or so of not really doing so, and that spawned one of the best front-wheel drive performance cars of the last fifteen years or so.
Is it still pointless on the basis that it "wasn't a big hit" in the sixteenth-largest car market in the world (behind countries like France, Spain... Iran)?
- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Where does Peugeot rank in USA sales?
I could say the two new Ford GTs are pointless.
People are still buying coupes though. 911s, Caymans, Camaros, Mustangs.
The TT even if it's adding doors, is still around. As the thread title mentions" in your view". If THEY proved they could make a coupe after umpteen years. Good for there R&D. If Peugeot predicted sales of coupes would fall, they could have built something else. They didn't, but in my view it's pointless.
As some of the vehicles at the beginning of the thread(LM002), they need not be sold in every corner of the world, to be viewed by someone as pointless. Right?
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
If a car turns a profit and helps regain a manufacturers image of one that makes fine handling cars, then how can it be considered as pointless?
- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Being able to prove they could build a coupe and not selling coupes thereafter, is pointless. The point homeforsummer was showing me for the brand, still didn't have to be done by said manufacturer. The brand sells hot hatches, sedans, etc. So, just because there was a small window of opportunity, did it have to be made?
One more thing. I know of Peugeot's rally heritage. If the RC Z being based on the 308, just use a 308 as that good handling car. It's been racing in Touring cars for a few years.
I know. That's a point I was making
Edit: Just remembered, Peugeot has revealed a 3-box coupe concept. If coupes are not being bought, why build make that and not a CUV or hatch concept?
Last edited:
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
Because they make plenty of those already and concepts are primarily about sparking the imagination.
You argued the RCZ was pointless essentially because the TT exists. We've offered several reasons why it isn't pointless - ones with much greater weight than "something similar from a different company exists". To continue to argue along your original point is, ironically, pointless.
- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Yes. My view is about the RCZ. I'm not arguing about it, if people keep asking me questions about my view. I can't stop them. Same as trying to convince me of something when you already shared what you wanted. Or is this now going to be a circle of pointlessness for my view?
- 51,491
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
But the thread title.
OP
The OP even has the second car as a flop for the manufacturer, but a success for the model. Where does that make it pointless? The Question is "your view". The OP then adds the last bit for, I guess, clarity.
My first post was about two "Camrys". No fight about my view there and Toyota sold loads of them(regardless of Toyota shutting down manufacturing in Australia). All on that first page no arguments of views there.
I'm not arguing anyone's view on what cars they pic. If they feel it was pointless, I respect their view. Or am I getting this all wrong?
- 27,219
- United Kingdom
I mean if people want to pick things to call pointless on a whim because they've not really thought things through (#internet) then that's their prerogative I suppose. But they should probably build some wiggle room into their indignant-o-meter (also #internet) just in case people point out all the really obvious things that suggest they didn't put much thought into their choice.
- 17,898
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
Porsche Cayenne Coupe
- 2,227
- Bács-Kiskun
- 4,975
- United States
- Stawookie
Agreed. You also feel much more superior than others too.But that's far not as stylish as driving a car!
Last edited:
- 2,833
- Colorado
- GTP_Cyborg
The ones with only two rows of seating, yes. I'm so sick of hearing people say they got an SUV because they "need more room" and they pull up with a five-seater... and they only have one kid. What was wrong with the sedan they had before? If you have so many kids that you need a third row, that's fine, get a Suburban. But I'm reading that the average family (at least in America) is smaller than in previous decades, which goes against this whole modern SUV craze as a solution for supposedly needing more room. As a middle child in a family of seven, I grew up with all of us going on interstate road trips in a Pontiac station wagon (with an awesome rear-facing third row!), so I get the family thing as long as you actually have a big family.
- SUVs are less safe in terms of maneuverability, and crash tests over the years have proven that the size does not equate to higher passenger safety - if anything, you're only making it more unsafe for whoever you hit because you're throwing more weight at them.
- Along the same lines, the weight and center of gravity will mean that a sedan will always have better sporting performance, if you're at all interested in that.
- The lighter sedan will always have that slight edge in fuel economy from the same powertrain.
- "I like being able to see above traffic" is another line I've heard a lot. You're not going to be seeing above traffic when every other vehicle on the road is an SUV or pickup. Look at Chevy's and Ford's decisions to kill off pretty much all of their small cars because they're not selling. That's where we're headed.
- Most SUVs are useless off road, and let's be real: 99% of these people, regardless of the SUV's capabilities, are never going to face anything rougher than a dirt road. Get an AWD sedan if driving on snow is difficult for you.
- Cargo space? Many wagons have more cargo room than many SUVs (or at least CUVs) - wagons are my main grudge: why are people going after small SUVs/CUVs and not seeing wagons as the logical choice? Wagons used to be big in America, what happened to that?
- Looks are of course subjective, but do people honestly think that SUVs look better than the sedans that the same manufacturer is also offering? I'm just not seeing it.
Just take a rolling suitcase (maybe steal a cart from the grocery store), and an umbrella if it's raining, and you'll be fine. Some quality shoe in-soles help with the longer journeys. And no carbon footprint!
GTV0819
(Banned)
- 6,084
- Papua New Guinea
You should realize that SUVs are popular mainly because of one thing; good & cool image over many other vehicle classes, especially over minivans. You may not see it but this trend has been going already for how long, more than a decade I suppose? And even in a few or more years, nothing will seem to just stop the craze. They will still sell like hotcakes, whether you like them or not. I know it's sad but that's just the reality.
Oof. Seems. You nailed that one.
- 2,833
- Colorado
- GTP_Cyborg
Oh, I know it's all about image. It has to be, because it doesn't make sense. I guess I'm just trying to understand why the image leans that way rather than another.
But if that cartoon isn't being sarcastic, it was thought up by some only-child idiot trying to attack a situation they've never known just to support their ignorant ideals. You can get all that SUV safety stuff in a sedan or wagon, and the second panel doesn't make sense because pickups weren't ever an only option.
But if that cartoon isn't being sarcastic, it was thought up by some only-child idiot trying to attack a situation they've never known just to support their ignorant ideals. You can get all that SUV safety stuff in a sedan or wagon, and the second panel doesn't make sense because pickups weren't ever an only option.
- 6,006
- Finland
I'll throw a curveball: large sedans. Not the MB S-class or BMW 7-series massive ones, but the "normal large", Audi 6-series, BMW 5-series, MB E-class. If one needs a car and the A4/3-series/C-class isn't enough, the reason to go one size bigger is usually the need for more room. I get that. But the thing I don't get is that then one is buying quite a bloody huge car that seats five people comfortably but has practically no room for the stuff they may be taking with them.
Thus, the large sedan is pointless, because the wagon will do the same job and it does it better. It may not be as stylish or as sporty (Audi RS6 and BMW M5 Touring disagree though) but it's a much more sensible choice.
Thus, the large sedan is pointless, because the wagon will do the same job and it does it better. It may not be as stylish or as sporty (Audi RS6 and BMW M5 Touring disagree though) but it's a much more sensible choice.
