Re: Integrale, the Ferrari killer

[shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields)]

>  To this day, I still don’t understand why people like Ferraris.

Every car must be evaluated on how well it lives up to its design
princples, and whether those principles make any sense.  Maybe a
Ferrari doesn't provide what you're looking for in a car (perfomance
per dollar?) but if you can understand what it *is* designed to
provide -- a sensuous driving experience -- than you can see that it's
worthy of respect nonetheless.  Part of that, and only part of it, is
the performance.

Let's consider some other cars:

Lincoln Town Car:
	Sofa-on-wheels cushiness.  It provides it.  If that's what you
	want from a car, great.

A tractor-trailer:
	Economical transport of a large volume and weight of cargo
	over a paved highway at fairly even speed, and low
	maintainence costs.  Not designed for speed, cornering, or
	style.  But it does move cargo cheaply and go for long
	distances without maintainence.

A "Fierrari" Fiero-based Fierrari lookalike:
	Designed to look like a Ferrari, and be cheap.  It does that.
	I wouldn't buy it and I'm not sure I would have much respect
	for someone who does, but from an engineering point of view it
	does accomplish what the designers intended.

Old VW Bug:
	Designed to be cheap and practical, through (a) small size,
	(b) simplicity, and (c) modular design for easy maintainence,
	right down to the engine.  Fabulously successful at these
	goals.  A poor choice for carrying eight people or displaying
	wealth.

New VW Bug:
	This is basically a VW Golf, water-cooled and front-engined
	like any other Golf, with curvy body panels and a different
	interior.  Basically antithetical to the original.  It also
	costs more than a normal Golf.  Its one goal is to satisfy
	nostalgia for Dr. Porsche's original peoples-car, but with
	modern automotive complexity.

The Lexus SUV:
	Designed to be trendy like a truck, but provide cushiness like
	a Lexus, and meanwhile point out that you have money.  Also
	intended to build on Toyota's existing large sunk costs of
	developing the Land Cruiser and its tooling.

Toyota Corolla:
	A competent transportation appliance.  Rock-solid reliable,
	not objectionable in any way, reasonably priced.  My mother
	has driven Corollas for years.  It's not my car, but it has
	its place in the world.  In many places you *do* need a car
	and if you're not an enthusiast, it's a fine choice.

Hyundai Tiburon:
	I don't like this car because I cannot think of anything to
	recommend it over a used, say, RX-7.  However, it builds brand
	image for Hyundai.

BMW M3:
	Designed for world-class performance but nonetheless in a
	practical package.  Essentially the same as the Quattro in its
	day.  The fact that people buy it for image doesn't diminish
	the car's respectability.

Porsche Boxster:
	It's a roadster.  Again, this is about driving experience. 

BMW 318i:
	In the US at least, this car sastisfies people's desire to
	"have a new Bimmer".  They are able to charge more for the
	318i because the brand image that the M3 and 7/8 series have
	built is being converted into cash.

Camaro:
	Still hard to beat in terms of acceleration per dollar.  Maybe
	that's not what you want.  Lots of people do.

Every car is built for a reason.  Sometimes respectable cars are
bought by poseurs and sometimes a car just doesn't make sense.  But
many cars have their place in the world, if not in your garage.

Um, does that answer your question?
-- 
Shields.
['86 Coupe GT]