![]() 10/29/2015 at 00:56 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
chop the top and round the hood and door corners.why they put square corners on the most curvy car in the world I will never know. also this took way longer than I would like to admit.
g’night
![]() 10/29/2015 at 01:08 |
|
I hope it won’t take too much longer until this car is regarded as embarrassing.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 01:11 |
|
For comparison:
The door corners look good. I’d go for a less extreme chop though.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 01:13 |
|
I initially thought they looked terrible, but then I saw one in real life. My god it’s a beautiful thing.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 01:16 |
|
The first thing would be to start with an earlier two seat car with the covered headlights. To me they have better proportions and would be a better starting point.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 01:27 |
|
Solid nope on this one.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 02:15 |
|
They’re already embarrassing. As Richard Hammond puts it “ it has always been too much of an old biffer’s car; something for the adenoidally challenged flat-cap wearer to talk about through his beard at the golf club ”.
I’m just hanging out for them to get embarrassing enough that prices drop again, and I can afford one.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 02:18 |
|
I’m with you on the curved aperture corners, but I don’t think the chop has helped. And as token_liberal points out, you’re starting with the wrong E Type anyway.
Biggest thing these need IMHO is a wider track: the wheelarches are sorely underfilled, which makes the whole thing look (a) ancient and (b) bloated.
I still wouldn’t kick one out of my garage though.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 03:23 |
|
you are embarrassed by the e type?
![]() 10/29/2015 at 03:24 |
|
ok why is that?
![]() 10/29/2015 at 03:26 |
|
The top always looked way too tall compared to the low curvy body so in my mind it makes it look a ton better.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 03:26 |
|
this was just my desktop for a while I just wanted to chop the top to see what it would look like.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 04:30 |
|
For me, you’re right about the 2+2, but the FHC is spot on, and your chop is too low. It’s all in the shape of the fastback - the 2+2 is just wrong and a chop won’t fix it, whereas the FHC is perfect.
2+2:
FHC:
Chop:
Still, your taste’s allowed to be different - if we were all the same it’d be creepy.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 04:33 |
|
thats a pregnant pussy aka 2+2 thats why you think you improved it.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 07:35 |
|
You could have at least started with a good looking E-Type instead of using the 2+2 for your source image. No one likes the 2+2.
You wouldn’t have had to chop so much top.
The wheelbase is also 9” longer on the 2+2. Just look at that door.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 11:43 |
|
Good work. The problem with the chopped top though is that I doubt I would fit in it now.
![]() 10/29/2015 at 12:16 |
|
Best way is add more E Type
![]() 10/29/2015 at 15:28 |
|
Just my personal taste.
![]() 11/04/2015 at 02:14 |
|
I’m all about that Low Drag GT look, personally.
![]() 11/04/2015 at 02:21 |
|
me too. take off the bumpers of my shopped car and put those wheels on and it will look somewhat close.