That makes sense, but only for the most extreme markets - particularly hypercars. It doesn’t really make any sense to penalize the prestige of big sedans and SUVs in the premium and luxury markets. As I said in the other thread, it results in the best luxury cars (which value prestige 30% and practicality 0.2%) being mid-engined two-seaters. Is a Rolls-Royce a worse luxury car than a McLaren because it has a big trunk and rear seats? Would chopping off the trunk of a Rolls-Royce make it more desirable? According to the current dichotomy, the answer is yes.
Changing the dichotomy to practicality vs sportiness makes so much more sense for other demographics as well. For instance, Light Sport values sportiness over prestige, while Muscle values prestige over sportiness. So naturally a Light Sport should have less practicality (Lotus) while a Muscle should have more practicality (Challenger). Currently the best way to make a muscle car is to have as few seats, doors, and cargo space as possible, which is the opposite of real life.
In real life, I think it’s far easier to build a car that has lots of practicality and prestige (look at all the luxury SUVs on the market today) than a car that has lots of practicality and sportiness. And when you have something like a BMW M3, people will always want to buy a BMW M4 which is identical except that is has two fewer doors - not because it’s more prestigious, but because it’s more sporty. An SL-class is not more prestigious than an S-class, but it’s certainly a lot more sporty.