Although...
Nope, still not better.
Mndsm said:Pontiac solstice.
The coupe looks way better than the drop top. And despite what everyone says the solstice is much better looking than the ugly Saturn copy.
And despite what everyone says the solstice is much better looking than the ugly Saturn copy.
I'm gonna be civil. The Solstice is one of the ugliest cars i can think of! It is, for example, WAY worse than both the Aztek and the Sunfire.
I'm not a fan of convertibles, but there is no doubt that there are some very beautiful ones, mostly British, with a smattering of Italians. Prettier than the coupes? That's very much a matter of opinion, and probably pointless to argue. I've heard (incomprehensibly) that some people will try to tell you that Nissans aren't the ugliest damn cars ever made. Crazy, huh?
Someone hit the only exception. He was wrong, though. A tin top E type roofline looks too much like a dog taking a dump.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
That would be this.
And even this looks better than the drop top version.
Wait, are we comparing convertibles with the tops up or down?
Up: I agree. They rarely look better.
Down: depends.
In my mind it’s not really a fair comparison. Drop tops are so much more involving. The next best thing to a motorcycle and without a helmet.
But maybe I’m biased. My first car was a leaky old E36 cabrio that I adored.
Mercedes 540K is VASTLY better with the top UP.
Unless it's a proper, disappearing top.
Same goes for the Horsch 853A Cabriolet:
For all their design prowess, the Germans sure can't build a convertible top that doesn't look like ass when it's down.
"The almost-down top company"
I'm solidly in the depends on the car camp. To me, if it's something that was designed as a convertible from the factory, then, yes, it's gonna look good. If the convertible came from bean counters saying "you should also have a convertible" then it looks bad. Some exceptions exist. Fox-chassis Mustangs to me look best as convertibles for example.
Pinchvalve's two red Ferraris are an unfair comparison. I was going to say "apples and oranges," but "spaghetti and pizza" might be more appropriate. The coupe isn't a hardtop version of the roadster, it's a different body entirely. I happen to like the coupe better, but that's just me. As for the black one, unless somebody put AC in it I'd at the very least want windows that roll down into the doors.
I think it depends in general I agree with you but I can think of a few exceptions.
Z3>coupe (not that the coupe looks bad by any means)
E-Type
Spitfire>GT6
Boxster>Cayman
Lotus Elan
At least of ones I can think of off the top of my head and all of those were designed as convertible and had the top added.
Edit: of course I just thought of one exception to what I just posted above the 356.
In reply to Stealthtercel :
That's because when it came time to put a hard top on the 250, Enzo said "Coupes are uglier than convertibles, make sure the 250 is uglier. People seem to like that." That's a direct quote from Il Commendatore. Probably. :)
This isn't bad, you understand the need for racing and it isn't a shooting brake, so it's OK.
Even this is OK because it retains the lines of the original pretty well.
Tapering it down reduces the visual mass and it works OK, if claustrophobic.
This? No. Too heavy at the rear, shift the center of visual mass too far back, makes the upright windshield look odd, its out of balance. Nice, but not as nice as the convertible. And the market agrees:
Budget around £35,000-£55,000 for a decent running coupe, and £70,000-£100,000 for the average roadster.
spandak said:Wait, are we comparing convertibles with the tops up or down?
Up: I agree. They rarely look better.
Down: depends.
In my mind it’s not really a fair comparison. Drop tops are so much more involving. The next best thing to a motorcycle and without a helmet.
But maybe I’m biased. My first car was a leaky old E36 cabrio that I adored.
The only time a convertible looks better with the top up is when you're planning to drive it in the rain.
You'll need to log in to post.