• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looks or performance - which do you care about more in a car?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< apparently I dont have a keen eye for either! I have a 1990 ford bronco 😉 >>


crappy ford.... You get it all with a 1990 chevy blazer tahoe!!! Looks, performance, and the middle seat folds down to make a big back seat...
 
Cars can be:

Fast and attractive.
Fast and ugly.
Slow and attractive.
Slow and ugly.

The first is preferable, the next two are acceptable, the fourth is unforgivable.

Viper GTS
 
All I care about is that it's reliable and cheap. Any extra money required for looks and/or performance stays in my pocket.
 


<< Nissan Se-R Spec V. Looks and performance are both possible at the same time. 🙂

there are other things more important than either of those though--- such as affordability. (which the spec v also has. 😀) >>



Now how does the Spec V have any real performance? It's pretty much an economy sedan with little horsepower to back it up.
 
Neither.

Reliability, safety, resale value and fuel efficiency are important to me.

Go ahead, make mock me!
 
performance...I'd rather have a POS that can kick anyones ass than somethin that looks good...
if I were to buy a impreza wrx I'd take the wrx stickers off so most people don't know its a normal subaru...
I'd much rather have a car that looks like crap...so you don't get pulled over and when people get beat by it they're all like WTF
 
i rather have a car that looks like a crap than that drives like a crap.

i think it's a bigger joke for a car to just look good.
 
Performance (and reliability) is really all I care about. If a car can get me to point B from point A, then it's fine with me. I could care less what it looks like.
 
Got to have both for me but if I had to lean either way Id chose a little more looks and comfort than all out performance. After all, when you drive in Floriduh there is grid lock even in your driveway.
 
85% performance, 15% looks.

I drive a 2001 Maxima, which is bland-looking and even slightly ugly, but I love the price/performance/interior size, so I can easily deal with the looks. I imagine if I were looking to spend significantly over, say, $30K I might care more about looks, but would never buy a handsome-but-dull-to-drive car.
 


<< I'd have to say both.

I'm not going to pick a car that performs well but looks like crap.

and

I'm not going to pick a car that looks really good but is a piece of crap. >>




agreed
 


<< I drive a 2001 Maxima, which is bland-looking and even slightly ugly, >>

Eh, speak for yourself! I think the current gen Nissan lineup looks great across the board whether it's sentra/altima/maxima!
 
As long as it doesn't look like an aztec I would go with the performance vote. I would take the most beat up rust bucket just so long as it performed well (and not just power, handling is almost more important to me).
 
a decent looking car with moderate performance

this is why i drive an accord

(i voted performance, just coz my next car will satisfy just that. although the looks are more than just decent (looking at either S2000 or IS300))

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top