![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:28 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
That you should not be able to call a car ugly if it looks better than the Marcos Mantis.
Yikes.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:33 |
|
That’s not fair.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:34 |
|
I kinda like it.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:34 |
|
That’s a terrible metric for ugly cars, I think it’s fucking awesome.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:34 |
|
Get out.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:34 |
|
I dunno, I kind of like it. I mean, it is pretty dang ugly, but you can see that it could have been a pretty car if it had just been a little less, uh, droopy.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:36 |
|
Still ugly.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:38 |
|
Sports car styled by committee.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:38 |
|
It does look like a Mantis.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:39 |
|
Why? I like it here
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:41 |
|
The interior was actually decidedly unterrible.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:42 |
|
Because you like the Mantis.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:44 |
|
It has a sort of misunderstood, yet lovable look.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 14:46 |
|
It’s like they found a surplus of very cheap windshields and designed a car (to suit) around them.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 15:06 |
|
Granted that Mantis wasn’t a hell of a looker but other ones looked pretty good.
1968
1996-2001
Ford Quad Cam 4.6 V8 with the Mantis GT being supercharged.
I like the 5.0litre V8 Marcos TS 500 Spyder.
and especially the TS250
![]() 01/28/2016 at 15:24 |
|
You can’t call that ugly. It’s functional, combined with an exceedingly large dose of Frank Costin not giving a fuck about looks compared to functionality.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 15:45 |
|
No doubt, Marcos can make some pretty goddamn sexy cars if they try.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 15:58 |
|
Sadly, no more since 2007.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 16:14 |
|
Amazingly Marcos used wood for their frames! Google, “plywood monocoque chassis”.
![]() 01/28/2016 at 17:14 |
|
I’m just going to leave you with this