Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Concept cars you wish existed or will come to life soon!


#102

Aren’t you guys also pumped for the rebirth of TVR? It’s a shame they aren’t so… primal anymore when it comes to looks.


#103

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#104

To me it looks like if Audi made the last gen Viper, but not terrible. V8, RWD, manual. Not bad at all.


#105

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#106

Looks rabid


#107

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#108

Not in production yet
TVR isn’t about objective performance, it’s about having am absolutely mental experience as a driver. Rabid, is the perfect way to describe it, @Vri404


#109

Yes, respect for sticking with a fundamentally flawed design that has all three orders of disbalance. -.-

So… what you need to do is have a car with too much power for it’s platform? Miata + LS swap. Done. Or any AMG Mercedes.


1955 Lincoln Indianapolis Concept



Beautiful… though the V8 exhausting into 6 pipes concept perplexes me. Should be 2, 4 or 8… but not 6.


#110

Re: that post like 50 posts ago about that new Porsche, er, whatever it was. Crossover? Cayenne x Panamera? I believe I have the explanation that will give you some perspective.

It looks like a BMW 5 series GT.

and done

Seriously I know they’re big cash cows and cash is good for companies (or can make them do really bad things, VW case in point) but any of the prestige companies that sells out by producing an over inflated performance SUV can suck it.


#111

So… all of them? lol
Rolls Royce is producing one at the moment, to be sold in 2017.

As others have mentioned, I also have a special hatred for the BMW X5/X6 and Porsche Cayenne… and the BMW 5 series GT is just a deformed mutant that should have been aborted, and the designer fired.

Maserati wanted to make an SUV in 2003; the “Kubang” but thankfully that died. I will not be posting it here because it goes against the thread’s intent of wanted cars.


The 1988 Cadillac Voyage. I’m sure everyone can figure out what this concept became… but look at what it could have been.


#112

Yep. Well, sadly one of the only ones that isn’t doing so yet is pretty much Ferrari (which I applaud as wanky as I think Ferrari can be, but hey, if you’re the one wanker brand left you should own it). Lambo sadly has one coming out too but then again they’re owned by Audi so whatever. Porsche could suck it long time ago, seriously the worst offender. Rolls Royce can go suck it a long time ago, like Mercedes (I have an personal bias against luxury trimmings in cars). For that reason Aston Martin can especially go and suck it. As can Bentley. Jaguar too, then again Clarkson’s piss take on Jaguars (“but it’s okay, because I drive a Juaaaaaaag!”) really underlined why the people I know who own a Jaguar should also really go and suck it if they weren’t already sucking their own if they could. And FYI, Maserati also now has a new SUV, the Levante. Did I miss anyone? More importantly, do you realise, as overpriced as this particular crop will be, the kind of people who will be buying these cars?

Don’t get me wrong, every one of these companies have their great cars and redeeming features but SUVs are ruining the automotive world and people who buy one for any other reason than one that convinces me that they absolutely need one to fulfill their functional travel needs needs to die in a nuclear detonation. /rant

On the plus side, McLaren have pledged never to build an SUV. And at least the smaller house of mad cars like Pagani and Koeniggsegg are too busy doing their one thing, so we have some safe havens from this plague.


#113

I’m gonna try to steer this towards a hopefully more cheerful tune.

Lamborghini Faena, a one-off four door variant of the Espada.


How would that fare for a family road trip?


#114

I think part of the problem is that we refer to those things as SUVs… when they aren’t. Their off-road ability is not superior to AWD cars, and they weren’t designed with that in mind. They may have a slightly higher ground clearance because of their 20in wheels, but when you factor in their immense weight, it does nothing because they’ll just sink in deeper than say, a Subaru WRX, which will just happily drive over light mud without issue.

I just don’t understand why the world is gravitating towards these… crossovers?
I completely understand the concept of wanting a large, expensive car. It’s a status symbol, and that’s fine. Those cars have their charm… think of the American land-yachts of the mid to late 70’s. Those, to me, feel more prestigious than any of these luxo-crossovers, because they have presence. Look at a Lincoln Mark V;


That is a vehicle with presence.
The Rolls Royce Phantom is on the right track; even though I find it fairly unattractive… it still has that visual weight. It still commands respect. None of these crossovers do the same to me.


Oh, I love the Espada, and I love that Faena. I think that’ll fare very well for a family road trip.


Concept time!
I’m running out of concepts I like o.O

Okay, since I was on the topic of presence, take a look at the Zil 4102 from 1998.



Now that’s a tank… and with monocoque construction. A 2-door coupe was also planned. Engine options were to be a 4.5L V6, two versions of a 6.0L V8, and a 7.0L Diesel V8. Transmissions options were either a 5 speed manual or a 4 speed automatic. One of the prototypes was fitted with a 315hp 7.7L V8 and a 3-speed automatic from an old Zil limo. That pushed her to 60mph in 10.5 seconds. Fuel efficiency was stated to be 13mpg (us) at 56mph, and 11mpg (us) at 75mph.


#115

Audi TT Sportback


What can I say… I’m a sucker for liftbacks :stuck_out_tongue:


#116

BMW GINA


#117

Yes, it’s particularly this part that I get annoyed by, I’m well aware that SUVs existed in, uh, their real form a long time before these crappy softroaders came out. It’s annoying because they became some kind of status symbol as well as being bought under the marketed misapprehension that they were somehow “safer because they were bigger and higher” (they aren’t safer for anybody, just like how you’d be way better off in a small overlap crash if you were in a Renault Espace than if you were in a Landrover Defender). How on earth did the world fall in love with buying crap they thought was better than it is??? oh wait, that’s consumerism all around isn’t it…


#118

That concept is called the Escala. The coupe I posted a picture of is the Elmiraj.

The Escala looks somewhat like a 4-door Elmiraj, with a bit of Audi A7 thrown in. Good looking car, but not a fan: too many doors. Annoyingly, it’s more likely to be put into production than the Elmiraj. :disappointed:


#119

In the end it comes down to people being lulled into a sense of security knowing that their “SUV” has the capability of off-roading. And whether that is actually true or not people just choose a something that looks the part, hence the strong market for crossovers. There’s literally no benefit of a crossover over a wagon, really.


That’s not of much use to use petrolheads anyway because apart from being poster cars, they don’t realistically contribute much of their tech to us common people.


Quote[quote=“KA24DE, post:109, topic:17541”]
respect for sticking with a fundamentally flawed design that has all three orders of disbalance. -.-
[/quote]

Why do you always shit on what I like :joy:
If everything was perfect, can you imagine how monotonous the world would be? Imperfections are what differentiate, and give character. I wouldn’t want every car in the world to be powered by inline sixes or boxer fours.
Know the 180SX you like (or any Nissan powered by the SR20)? I know you know I4’s aren’t balanced either. So, my point is, [rainbow]who cares?[/rainbow]


#120

Excuse my brainfart. I got the names all confused.


#121

While this is true, just please let me have my “at least they aren’t building any fucking SUVs” happy place :joy: