![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:11 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:22 |
|
Wow that’s ugly
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:22 |
|
Better than a Buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:23 |
|
It even has a rare factory aero kit. Its not a Buick by the way.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:23 |
|
It’s not a Buick, and that’s what makes it better than a Buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:24 |
|
Really though what the fuck is the beltline/that character line doing? Makes the car look like a cartoon wedge with the universes worst rear visibility
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:27 |
|
Nothing better then a Buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:27 |
|
Pininfarina
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:28 |
|
I can name a whole bunch of things that are better than a Buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:30 |
|
but none are better then a buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:33 |
|
Believe me, if you think that car has bad rear visibility it’s because you haven’t endured (sorry, driven) one. Talk about steering from inside a postbox. It feels very claustrophobic and I am not even tall.
I suppose the feeling is less severe in the soft top version, for obvious reasons. In fact I think the cabrio is prettier.
By the way, the front and general outline has more than a passing ressemblance to Pininfarinas’s Audi quattro-based “Quartz” show car from 1981.
.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:34 |
|
Didn’t some Alfa Spiders of that gen make it to the States?
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:39 |
|
I just generally hate cars with severely raked beltlines. See also: Cadillac CTS Coupe, Toyota Prius, Ford Fiesta.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:39 |
|
So? Just because some design firm shat it out doesn’t make it solid gold
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:44 |
|
I suppose the idea in this case was to make the rear quarters look less fat. The Alfa’s half-sibling, the Fiat Coupé –with a more primitive rear suspension but probably a better car overall, even if it never ever had Alfa’s glorious V6– used something like “slashes” for a similar effect.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:46 |
|
Pardon the garbage photoshop from forever ago, and I realize this destroys rear headroom but from an aesthetic standpoint I hope you’ll see where I’m coming from.
Boom. No more acres of blank space above the rear wheels. Much more proportional. Oh, and fuck door handles.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:51 |
|
I do, I do. However, there must be a reason - maybe cramming all those humans inside a shortish car and having the fuel tank under the rear seat/boot area etc etc. Design is likely to be much more driven by (technical) compromise than we think!
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:52 |
|
Yeah, that combined with rear crash safety is why many cars do it, but other cars that have no reason to be that way often do the same thing.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:56 |
|
I have a unsanitary obsession with these. Give me a turbo V6 and I’m DONE.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:58 |
|
Beautiful car, so much more so than a Buick.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 11:58 |
|
I don’t think so.
![]() 11/28/2016 at 12:30 |
|
There actually a few 916 GTV Spiders in the US, although grey market ones. A guy from Tennessee imported some of those Spiders in the late 90s but were caught by the EPA.
I’m sorry for you ‘Muricans with those dumbass pseudo protectionist nonsense laws and regulations.