Ok, I think this could be pretty interesting. You have the choice of one of two cars to use everyday. They both cost the same. Maintenance, insurance, ergonomics, fuel, space, and all those boring attributes are identical.

Option 1

First option has mind-boggling performance. It could have whatever numbers you long for the most--standing 8s in the quarter, Veyronesque top speed ridiculousness, more torque than ocean waves, g-forces in the corners that only fighter pilots are accustomed to, 10 gears that change so quickly it seems like an illusion, weight not exceeding that of three supermodels on a dry salad diet, dyno queen four-digit HP numbers, etc. On the road, you are untouchable. You pull up next to a Koenigsegg at a stoplight and it turns left in cowardice. Lotus and Caterham drivers at track days pull over and watch your hot lap in awe. You're the safety car for the Monaco GP and the F1 cars can barely keep up with you. The asphalt creases as your car bites for grip. This is driving nirvana.

However, the car is ugly. And not just Pontiac Aztek ugly--some dumb suckers actually bought those. I'm talking so ugly that it is an assault to the eyes. This should be illegal. Everything is wrong. It looks like it could have been designed by Vlad the Impaler and not in a cool way. There are curves where there should be corners and corners where curves should be. Dogs whimper as you drive past. Women leap off bridges as you approach to escape the horridness. Pictures of your car replace GOATSE as the new internet shock meme. PT Cruiser Convertible forums are filled with photoshopped pictures of your car next to weeping children and suicidal facepalms. The DOT submits a legislative draft to Congress for an ugly tax because of this monstrosity. The interior is worse. This makes a Soviet prison seem inviting. Safe to say you'll never be getting road-head in this thing.

Option 2

This car is slow. Ok, really slow. One notch below an 80s Hyundai hatch. You hit 60 MPH in the time it takes a Corolla to do the quarter. Buicks tailgate you on Sunday drives. On ramps need to be extended. Twice. S2000 owners poke fun at your torque curve. It has the body lean of a tugboat and less grip than ice on top of another piece of ice. You stick your head out the window for more air resistance when braking. C4 Corvette owners rejoice that there is finally a car with less suspension finesse and sophistication than theirs. The steering feels like it is made from wood and the pedals couldn't communicate less if you were trying to heel-toe wearing a bear trap. You are routinely overtaken by runaway baby strollers and guys on unicyles. You'll need a running start on steep inclines. This car's capabilities are a cruel joke.

It is beautiful though. Moreso than the female figure. Moreso than any exotic seascape in the south of France. This is it folks. When parked, this car attracts crowds of weak-kneed glassy-eyed onlookers mesmerized by its perfect proportions and phenomenal presence. Even God looks at this car and says "Ok, I'll admit that's impressive." All automotive publications herald it as the masterpiece of our age. The Italians see this car and close shop because, what's the point? Every boy has a bedroom poster of it. Styling venues and art houses beg to have it on display. This is magnum opus on wheels. Step inside and this is what Arab Sheiks can only dream of. Animals went extinct for the hide covering the seats, dash, and wheel. There are polished metals in here that you thought only existed in sci-fi films. The instrument panel has dials only rivaled by a Patek Phillipe Swiss timepiece. This car exudes style.

So which would you have? I realize this is extreme at either end, but there's no right or wrong answer--merely preference.

 

Id much rather choose option 1 and see the face of drivers of more expensive cars

 

A car that is only shockingly beautiful is one that I would want to look at, not drive. Ergo, I pick the ugly, but fast, car.

I know I'm not alone. Look at all the STi and Evo owners.


























Just kidding about the STi and Evo - they can both look really good with a few minor changes and I have considered both as an option at some point in my life.

 

I've owned several CRXs, a 914, and now a S2000.

ugly, quirkly, but fun-to-drive cars speak louder to me than a car that looks pretty in a parking lot.

 

Ugly but fast = people laugh when they see it, but when they see it move.

Pretty but slow = people may think it's cool at first, but you'll never live it down when you get passed by a vespa.

Cars are made to be driven, not just looked at.

 

Style. Drivetrain swap. Win/win.

 

Option 1 seems to describe the new GTR rather well. Although the GTR is not THAT ugly, it is ugly in my book.

I voted Option 1.

 

option 2, then spending some extra cash on a ap1 engine swap

you can make a slow car a bit faster..

but you can't make a ugly car pretty.

IMO

 

Folks in this thread are such LIARS! Performance over style my ass. I have the threads to prove it..lol

 

Missing Option: Driver Feel

EDIT: I saw the last line of Option 1, Driving Nirvana.

Okay, that would be my pick.