Last minute Koenigsegg, Lamborghini and Porsche news from Geneva ...

[demonrunning07]

Maybe it's harder to understand from the perspective of an American who doesn't live in a big city. I guess it makes a little bit more sense as an accessory to a DBS but it's still hard for me to see anyone actually buying. I guess another aspect of my failure to understand the Cygnet is that making a fashion statement wouldn't be my primary motivation for owning an Aston Martin. The fashion statement would just be an added bonus to driving such an exquisite automobile.

[Ferrer]

A car being a fashoin statement is never a good thing.

[henk4]

A car being a fashoin statement is never a good thing.

Swallow that, BMW....

[Kitdy]

This car makes no sense outside of fleet averages. They are the only reason it is being made.

[demonrunning07]

A car being a fashoin statement is never a good thing.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that. The fashion statement is a crucial part of almost any supercar's allure. The only supercar I can think of that doesn't even attempt to make a fashion statement is the Gumpert Apollo. And in all honesty, I really wouldn't want to drive one. At all. But I would drive a Spyker for the fashion statement, and so too would Jeremy Clarkson, even though it's a lot slower than the Gumpert in any conceivable scenario (except for parking in front of a Monaco casino or picking up supermodels). Every supercar should make some sort of fashion statement. If it doesn't, then it's not a supercar; it's just a street-legal track-car. What I do have a problem with is a car that is no better than, say, a Toyota iQ but makes a "fashion statement" because it costs 3x as much and has an "exclusive" badge and grill.

[Ferrer]

Then I think we have different definitions for fashion statement.

Some supercars have style, drama or charisma, but they don't make a fashion statement per se. The Toyoartin is does make a fashion statement, in the same way an Audi or a Ferrari does. And I certainly wouldn't want any of the three.

[demonrunning07]

Then I think we have different definitions for fashion statement.

Some supercars have style, drama or charisma, but they don't make a fashion statement per se. The Toyoartin is does make a fashion statement, in the same way an Audi or a Ferrari does. And I certainly wouldn't want any of the three.

Ok, that makes sense. But if my ship was to suddenly sail in (aka, I win the lottery), a I'd probably buy a 612 Scaglietti as my first car. Sure, Ferrari is as much if a label in the car world as Gucci is in the clothing industry but there's something real, something tangible, about a Ferrari that makes it more than just another car. On the opposite hand, I can't see much advantage of owning an Audi or a BMW over any other mid-sized RWD sedan. Sure, the Audi or BMW may have a little bit more wood on the dash than a car that costs thousands less but it's still a mid-sized sedan designed to get you most efficiently from point-A to point-B. Thus, the only advantage of an Audi or BMW is the label. The Cygnet is just painfully blatant telling the same story. This is the type of fashion statement with which I don't agree.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Perhaps you should specify fashion for fashion's sake.

In which case, it's art

[Ferrer]

612 Scaglietti, that's the least fashionable Ferrari and as a result the best they make today. If I had to have a Ferrari it certainly would be the 612, since it's the one which is the least embarrassing, altough at this price point there are so many options and there's no need to go with the big Ferrari.

As for Audis, well yes front engined models are bought for the badge. A Seat or a Ford does the same for a lot less, so in my opinion there's no point in buying a front engined Audi at all. I disagree with BMWs though. Yes, there still is the badge stigma, altough not quite as bad as with Audis, but they do offer something else. They are superb to drive. The thing is, we don't have many practical rear wheel drive alternatives, so it's pretty much BMW or nothing.

I was doing a search on the cheapest rear wheel drive cars on sale here. The cheapest was the Mazda MX-5. Love it, but it only has 2 seats. Then came the 1 Series the Merc CLC, the Lexus IS and the Chrysler 300C. I'd say that, Mazda aside, the 1er is still the best to drive of all those. So I can still make the case for a BMW.

But, mainly yes, premium manufacturers often represent a fashion statement, and the wrong kind of fashion statement. And that's with their cars, let's not even get started with SUVs or all kinds of strange contraptions they build.

And then there's the Cygent which, no matter in which way they try to argue it, it's just wrong.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

612 Scaglietti, that's the least fashionable Ferrari and as a result the best they make today. If I had to have a Ferrari it certainly would be the 612, since it's the one which is the least embarrassing, altough at this price point there are so many options and there's no need to go with the big Ferrari.

the 612, no matter which way you cut it, is poorly styled. The proportions, necessitated by the layout, look strained, the headlights look disproportionate, and the scalloped sides? no thanks.

the 458 Italia is proof positive that there is hope for Ferrari Design, but the 612 is the best argument for the negative out of any of them.

As for Audis, well yes front engined models are bought for the badge. A Seat or a Ford does the same for a lot less, so in my opinion there's no point in buying a front engined Audi at all. I disagree with BMWs though. Yes, there still is the badge stigma, altough not quite as bad as with Audis, but they do offer something else. They are superb to drive. The thing is, we don't have many practical rear wheel drive alternatives, so it's pretty much BMW or nothing.

BMW's are relatively excellent to drive, in certain models, no doubt.

But there are practical aspects to consider also, and the fact remains that RWD hinders packaging requirements for cars. This is why the 1 series has a near useless rear passenger footwell, where an A3 gives me plenty of legroom.

I was doing a search on the cheapest rear wheel drive cars on sale here. The cheapest was the Mazda MX-5. Love it, but it only has 2 seats. Then came the 1 Series the Merc CLC, the Lexus IS and the Chrysler 300C. I'd say that, Mazda aside, the 1er is still the best to drive of all those. So I can still make the case for a BMW.

I think we're a bit spoilt in Australia, We have the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore stealing the "cheapest RWD car" price tag, While they aren't technically proficient drives, they are a lot of car for the money.

But, mainly yes, premium manufacturers often represent a fashion statement, and the wrong kind of fashion statement. And that's with their cars, let's not even get started with SUVs or all kinds of strange contraptions they build.

When a car is concious of it's intention to be a fashion icon, it fails. See Rover Streetwise, Volkswagen CrossPolo et al.

When a car becomes a fashion icon by it's simple existance, it becomes a worthy icon. See Mini, E30.

When a car is so gorgeously styled it becomes rolling sculpture, it's High art. See E-Type, DB9.

And then there's the Cygent which, no matter in which way they try to argue it, it's just wrong.

I guess the problem for the Cygnet is that it's a logical solution to one of the most emotional brands out there. You don't buy an Aston Martin with your head, but that is what they're asking Cygnet customers to do.

[Ferrer]

the 612, no matter which way you cut it, is poorly styled. The proportions, necessitated by the layout, look strained, the headlights look disproportionate, and the scalloped sides? no thanks.

the 458 Italia is proof positive that there is hope for Ferrari Design, but the 612 is the best argument for the negative out of any of them.

I can more or less agree in terms of aesthetics, the 612 isn't a good looking car altough in my opinion neither is the 458, modern Ferrari or not. But in my opinion fashion statement doesn't necessarily have to do with the beauty of the car.

In a simplistic way, the 458 is footballer cars, while the 612 isn't. And that's why in my opinion the 458 is the wrong kind of fashion statement and the 612 isn't.

BMW's are relatively excellent to drive, in certain models, no doubt.

But there are practical aspects to consider also, and the fact remains that RWD hinders packaging requirements for cars. This is why the 1 series has a near useless rear passenger footwell, where an A3 gives me plenty of legroom.

Again agree. but if you want rear leg room and big boot why spend BMW money on a glorified Skoda? I mean I'm sure an equivalent Octavia or Leon does the same job for a lot less than the A3.

That's the problem with Audis, unlike BMWs or Mercs, they hardly offer anything that can't be had in a much cheaper package, and therefore it's hard for me to see their point.

I think we're a bit spoilt in Australia, We have the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore stealing the "cheapest RWD car" price tag, While they aren't technically proficient drives, they are a lot of car for the money.

You are lucky, in the same way the US gets Mustangs, Challengers and Camaros. And you've got the sapce too, which isn't the case here. I could buy the 300C, diesel auto unfortunately, for about 30 grand and that's a lot of car for very little money, but it's not going to fit in our average city or mountain road.

When a car is concious of it's intention to be a fashion icon, it fails. See Rover Streetwise, Volkswagen CrossPolo et al.

When a car becomes a fashion icon by it's simple existance, it becomes a worthy icon. See Mini, E30.

When a car is so gorgeously styled it becomes rolling sculpture, it's High art. See E-Type, DB9.

I can more or less agree with that too. But, I'd say the E30 is a glorious driver's car icon, not a fashion icon. At least not in the way the Mini or the Fiat 500, the 2CV or others became.

I've just noticed that this category might be in its majority formed by cheap mass produced cars that simply trascended their status as mere transportation objects into icons of their time.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I can more or less agree in terms of aesthetics, the 612 isn't a good looking car altough in my opinion neither is the 458, modern Ferrari or not. But in my opinion fashion statement doesn't necessarily have to do with the beauty of the car.

The Trabant is a fashion icon also, so the argument is valid.

The 612 is like a Mondial - It's a ferrari, and the basics are there, it just will never be cool.

In a simplistic way, the 458 is footballer cars, while the 612 isn't. And that's why in my opinion the 458 is the wrong kind of fashion statement and the 612 isn't.

The 612 is about as Pipe and Slippers as Ferrari's get. It's your dad's Ferrari, if your dad was loaded.

the 458 is modern, stylish, and I think looks good. perhaps I'm overly modern, I don't know.

Again agree. but if you want rear leg room and big boot why spend BMW money on a glorified Skoda? I mean I'm sure an equivalent Octavia or Leon does the same job for a lot less than the A3.

Because you have BMW money to spend, is the only reason I can come up with.

That or the grille is pretty

That's the problem with Audis, unlike BMWs or Mercs, they hardly offer anything that can't be had in a much cheaper package, and therefore it's hard for me to see their point.

The same could be said of Mercedes - So what about the millions of pound spent on R&D? it's still got four wheels, hasn't it?

It's an argument that you can have till you're blue in the face, but Audi's are obviously good at something because they sell in remarkable numbers, and despite never being sold here I would love an Audi A2, truly a car ahead of it's time in thinking.

You are lucky, in the same way the US gets Mustangs, Challengers and Camaros. And you've got the sapce too, which isn't the case here. I could buy the 300C, diesel auto unfortunately, for about 30 grand and that's a lot of car for very little money, but it's not going to fit in our average city or mountain road.

Thus why RWD cars aren't popular in Europe - the packaging requirements for small RWD cars are insanely complex, and the best ones, you'll notice, have very limited model ranges and variants.

I can more or less agree with that too. But, I'd say the E30 is a glorious driver's car icon, not a fashion icon. At least not in the way the Mini or the Fiat 500, the 2CV or others became.

I've just noticed that this category might be in its majority formed by cheap mass produced cars that simply trascended their status as mere transportation objects into icons of their time.

Cars with personality that poor interesting people can afford.

Is that a good definition of Style icon?

[Ferrer]

The 612 is like a Mondial - It's a ferrari, and the basics are there, it just will never be cool.

The 612 is about as Pipe and Slippers as Ferrari's get. It's your dad's Ferrari, if your dad was loaded.

the 458 is modern, stylish, and I think looks good. perhaps I'm overly modern, I don't know.

Don't worry I'm from the 1920's.

I don't agree with 612/Mondial analogy. The new Mondial is the California. If we look past the rather ugainly styling, the Scaglietti is pure classic Ferrari. A big V12 up in front, were it should be, four relatively comfy seats and lots of speed without being nerdy. It's like they had the ingredients and then shut the computers down and combined them in the old school way.

It's got no clever gearbox, or diff, or even the engine, which isn't very modern. In a way it's a bit like the Lamborghini Murcielago. Both are the last of a line, a line which can be traced up to the 250 GTE 2+2 and the Miura respectively. They are the last old-schoolers, they represent the old way of making cars. They were made by people rather than by computer, even if they were actually made by computers, you know what I mean. When those two disappear there'll only one member of this shrinking club left. The Bentley Mulsanne.

Because you have BMW money to spend, is the only reason I can come up with.

That or the grille is pretty


The same could be said of Mercedes - So what about the millions of pound spent on R&D? it's still got four wheels, hasn't it?

It's an argument that you can have till you're blue in the face, but Audi's are obviously good at something because they sell in remarkable numbers, and despite never being sold here I would love an Audi A2, truly a car ahead of it's time in thinking.

It's marketing. To be brutally honest I don't know how the hell happened, but somewhat in this last decade Audis have gone from well built, discreet, subtle german premium cars, to being the best thing ever made since sliced bread was invented.

I remember when my uncle bought his first A6. I even didn't dislike it. I was little and couldn't understand driving dynamics, but I remember we had a fist generation A6 2.8 Quattro, the 30 valve model, while it may not be the best car in the world it was respectful. These days though, all cocks have moved into Audis, and they all think they have the best car in the world.

And this, more than being good or bad, is what drives me up the wall. They bable around about how their TT is a great sportscar, or the S3 the be all end all of hot hatches. And never mind their big Audis with S-line packages, the best sports saloons and sports estates ever made. It's that superority complex that makes Audis so hateful now, for me.

I believe this is because they were safe and easy to drive. See, a BMW may be a better car dynamically, but I reckon that on the limit it is a delicate car. Oversteer can be difficult to control especially if it's sudden and unexpected. On the other hand, understeery Audis were easy to control, if not especially rewarding, and easy to drive fast, possibly making them faster than rear wheel drive vehicles in the real world. Heck, my uncles still comments on how good was four wheel drive in his Audis, and he still wishes he had it, despite driving one of the best sports saloons in its segment, in my opinion (XF).

However, I like the A2 too, it was one of the very rare moments of brilliance from Audi. A clever, lightweight city car, spacious and practical with decent performance and frugality. A shame it was so expensive, a result of the aluminium use, and nobody bought one. Makes the A1 seem more of an insult to intelligent people. Original A8 had the same principle, but then the X350 XJ appeared, and made the A8 a bit redundant.

In conclusion, I'm not against paying more for a car, that's why we are petrolheads after all, but that car has to give something more than the cheaper alternative, driving experience, charisma, or whatever. In my view none of the front engined Audis do right now. And then as I commented there's the image problem, which makes it far worse.

Cars with personality that poor interesting people can afford.

Is that a good definition of Style icon?

It is.

And then there are many examples, even cars that weren't even particularly good when they were launched. One that I can think of now is the Rover SD1.

[Revo]

In a simplistic way, the 458 is footballer cars, while the 612 isn't.

I challenge you to name the number of footballers who have bought 458.

While you are at it, also look up the number of footballers who have bought 612.

[Ferrer]

I challenge you to name the number of footballers who have bought 458.

While you are at it, also look up the number of footballers who have bought 612.

They haven't been able to buy it yet. They must have 430s now.