
Ask HN: Why aren't there middle class cars shaped like Ferraris? - amitassaraf
I always wondered why car companies like Mazda or Hyundai or Honda don&#x27;t produce cars that may not have the performance capabilities of a Ferrari but resemble one in their shape? Thus advancing the way the car market looks now a days. Does anyone have a clear answer?
======
giarc
I can offer an opinion not yet seen in this thread. It comes down to
tolerances. My father works for GM as a tool and die maker. He says that GM is
obsessed with tolerances in their panels. This means that the gap between the
hood and front quarter panel is the same near the windshield as it is near the
headlights. Same goes for all other areas of the car. It's hard to get right.
If you start to get more complex designs with panels meeting at odd angles and
with multiple bends it gets even harder, and more expensive.

Therefore, my theory is that mid range car companies don't want to build
complex designs as they will increase the price of their car needed to satisfy
their tolerance specs.

~~~
vidanay
This, this, this.

In simpler terms: You can't build a "Ferarri shaped car" at the same price as
an Chevy Impala because the shape is a part of the cost.

~~~
TylerE
I'm not sure I really agree. It's been done.

Mid-engined layouts are just a pain to do maintenance on, generally offer
reduced cargo space and interior room.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/19...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/1994_MkII_MR2_nbvolks.jpg/280px-1994_MkII_MR2_nbvolks.jpg)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Fe...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Festival_automobile_international_2014_-_Alfa_Romeo_4C_-_009.jpg/280px-
Festival_automobile_international_2014_-_Alfa_Romeo_4C_-_009.jpg)

~~~
adventured
When has a mass produced middle class car ever looked like that Alfa 4C? It's
neither mass produced, nor middle class. It shipped with a $67k msrp. You're
talking about a car that sells in the hundreds of units.

~~~
TylerE
The 4C has a base price of $55,000. You can spec most mid-sized crossovers
into that price territory.

They build 3,500 of 'em per year. That's very high compared to say, any given
Ferrari or Lamborghini model.

~~~
jbmorgado
I think the difference might lie in the income level in USA vs EU, but a
middle class car in EU is about 25K-35K euros after all taxes.

~~~
TylerE
Average new car price (NOT including taxes and fees) in the US is $34,400.

[http://mediaroom.kbb.com/record-new-car-transaction-
prices-r...](http://mediaroom.kbb.com/record-new-car-transaction-prices-
reported-december-2015)

~~~
jbmorgado
Yes, but what I meant is what do you consider middle segment for cars in the
USA?

In EU, a Volkswagen Golf for instance is middle segment, but perhaps in the
USA is considered lower segment and therefore the difference.

~~~
TylerE
We buy way way way more luxury cars and suvs than you do. These are not
considered vehicles for the wealthy either.

Small cars do not really sell here.

(For reference, I actually bought a new VW Golf R about 2 weeks ago... for
roughly $41,000, just as a single data point).

~~~
jayjay71
How much do you like the Golf R? Is the 4WD worth the price increase over the
GTI?

~~~
TylerE
Love it.

In my case, the price premium isn't really that much to even think of, as I
would have been going with a fully loaded GTI, which would have sticked around
$35k or so, so it's not even _that_ much of a price bump.

------
heavymark
Middle class cars at aimed at different needs than highend cars. A highend car
like a Ferrari may aim at image and performance solely and not consider how
that car would handle/drive in adverse conditions like snow or concerns for
MPG.

Most middle class cars are highly optimized shape wise for MPG as well as
handling all types of road and weather which is why tires on performance cars
look so different than middle class cars, because their goals are completely
different.

Cars like Hyundai are building their own brands based on great technology,
reliability, strong MGP etc. If they attempted to simply through that out the
window and look like a ferrari, they would lose their core customer base and
also not attract ferrari's customer base because they don't want a something
lat looks similar on the outside but has lawn mower on the inside.

~~~
markbnj
This is a good answer. It boils down to what you're paying for. My dad was a
suspension and steering engineer at General Motors years ago, and he impressed
upon me the number of evolutions these designs go through. The current shape
of a standard "middle class car" is highly optimized to give the best trade-
off between aerodynamics, fuel efficiency, interior capacity, structural
strength, etc. That's what a typical middle class buyer wants to pay for. A
Ferrari is entirely optimized to look hot and go fast, and makes a huge number
of concessions to those goals. Just try using one as a daily driver and
grocery hauler and you'll see why few people do that.

~~~
eatbitseveryday
> A Ferrari is entirely optimized to look hot and go fast, and makes a huge
> number of concessions to those goals. Just try using one as a daily driver
> and grocery hauler and you'll see why few people do that.

But then there are sports cars that are meant as daily drivers, like the BMW
M5. The former CTO of Intel said he owns one and uses it as such.

~~~
Analemma_
Sure, but this thread is about "middle-class cars", which the M5 definitely is
not.

~~~
quietplatypus
With depreciation and older m5 models, you could definitely fit the initial
and maintenance costs of a m5 into a middle class budget.

------
cjlars
Pontiac launched the 'Fiero' with styling inspired by the Ferrari 308 in the
mid 80s [1]. Around the same time, VW also launched the 'Corrado' as a
possible 'successor to the Porsche 944'. Both models were pulled from the
market after a few years of production and now have somewhat of a cult
following among car collectors. They had good initial interest and sales, but
were regarded as too expensive and unreliable, and so eventually so lost out
to other, more practical competitors.

In my opinion, cheap luxury clones don't work because the market is too small.
Plenty of people like the idea of a 'cool' car, but the car is a big ticket
item for most people, so practical, reliable and having a good resale value
tend to trump 'cool' as an important feature. You'll also note that classic,
'boring' colors tend to outsell flashy, 'cool' colors. Even the best selling
sports cars in the mid-price segment, e.g. VW GTI, tend to have a hatchback
and a large, useful interior that is workable for a family car.

Fun fact: The Fiero was featured in the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off as the
car owned by the feature character's sister.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Fiero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Fiero)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Corrado](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Corrado)

~~~
spullara
I had a 1986 Fiero SE v6 that we bought used in 1990 for $3000. I traded it in
3 years later for a Honda and they gave me $4500 off. Super fun car and looked
great!

[http://www.fierostore.com/Media/Wallpapers/Images/509_1920x1...](http://www.fierostore.com/Media/Wallpapers/Images/509_1920x1080.jpg)

------
byoung2
For reasons of economics, they need to be able to share parts with other
models so they can't deviate too much in terms of design. When regular car
companies do build unique sports cars (e.g. Nissan GTR, Lexus LFA, Ford GT,
Acura NSX), they end up being more expensive anyway, so they would have to put
in the performance to match to justify the cost. Even swapping in a cheaper
drive train wouldn't make the car dramatically cheaper.

~~~
DeBraid
> For reasons of economics, they need to be able to share parts with other
> models so they can't deviate too much in terms of design.

Thanks for this concise answer. If this were Stack Overflow, you'd get
checkmark!

------
durandal1
In the documentary Objectified (recommended!), a BMW designer brings up the
point that a car design should express what the car _is_. If there's a
mismatch between the look, and how it feels to drive, it will be rejected by
customers.

~~~
iaw
The Fiero comes to mind.

~~~
qbrass
It outsold the Corvette every year it was produced.

------
dagw
Because at the end of the day the Ferrari (or Porsche or Lamborghini) design
is not a very comfortable or practical design for day to day use. The (two)
people I know who own Porsche sports cars also own a second car.

~~~
arethuza
I've never seen anyone doing a daily commute in a Ferrari or Lambo but I've
known a few people who drove their 911s every day. 911s are lot more practical
(and a good bit cheaper) than their exotic Italian cousins.

~~~
Symbiote
I used to live in a very expensive area of London [1] (my university owned
about half this block, my room in first year was probably worth £0.5M...).

Many people on the street owned Porsches, Ferraris, and there were two
Lamborghinis, most were used daily. But, I think there was a restriction of
one car per household parked on the street, and most would only have been
driving a very short distance through central London -- usually at about
5-6am, before there was much traffic.

BMWs, Mercedes and Lexus cars were more common than the sports cars, and
Porsche cars more common than Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

[1]
[https://www.google.dk/maps/@51.488953,-0.1788157,3a,75y,230....](https://www.google.dk/maps/@51.488953,-0.1788157,3a,75y,230.85h,74.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfWg_AgO9r7SD7ezwTvrxbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
(take left turns, I think there are five Porsches, and something I don't
recognize. But this is probably the weekend, when most of the rich people were
away, and normal people "borrowed" the parking spaces. A Porsche shop is 2
minutes walk away, the Lamborghini shop about 5 minutes.)

------
andr
The Toyota GT86, Mazda MX5, and Nissan 370Z are examples of that. However,
looking at how many models were discontinued (Honda S2000, Toyota Supra,
Toyota Celica, Mazda RX8), maybe the market opportunity is not as big.

~~~
lightedman
The Celica was not discontinued. I'm looking at a 2016 model right now, it's a
clone of a Dodge Viper.

~~~
Zak
Can you link to a web page describing this car? The last Celica I'm finding
reference to was discontinued in 2006 and looked nothing like a Viper.

~~~
byoung2
[http://carnewmodels.com/new-toyota-
celica-2017-release/](http://carnewmodels.com/new-toyota-celica-2017-release/)

Don't know when the release will be

~~~
Zak
This seems to be a rumor rather than an announced product. It's a revised
version of the current GT86/Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ.

------
mcguire
They're not terribly practical. They are fairly large, only seat two, and have
no cargo capacity. Low suspensions have...difficulties in many situations.
They are also not especially aerodynamic compared to most modern sedans.

I have a Corvette, which is a freaking hatch back compared to most high end
sportscars.

------
rabboRubble
A Ferrari is not a terribly comfortable car to drive. Tuned well, it's got a
hard suspension and you feel the road in order to drive it properly. It can be
unforgiving if you make a mistake. It's got no room for the crap a mother or a
father needs to haul around. Difficult to put a car seat in there.

Middle class cars don't look like a Ferrari because the Ferrari body and look
enforces some decisions on the designers and the drivers of that car. No
hauling around of crap for you. Even if you manage a child car seat, the kid
will be screaming the entire time when it feels every hard bounce in the road.
Your body is jarred as well. It's a sensitive car that requires an alert
driver. Will you enjoy having that alertness day after day drive to work and
back in congestion? Probably not... You want an easy driving car with a
comfortable ride and room for crap. And voila you have a modern sedan.

Edit: voila and not viola. I've got orchestra on the brain.

~~~
euyyn
Nit picking: "voila". Viola is the string instrument bigger than a violin.

~~~
sarreph
I prefer octobass.

~~~
BJanecke
I prefer octocat.

------
brudgers
Aerodynamically, they do to a meaningful extent although there is often a lag
of several years due to the length of development cycles: for example the
Datsun 240z and the Ferrari 275GT or the wedge shape of a 2012 Civic Coupe and
the Lamborghini Countach of 1980's college dorm room walls. And there's
decades of Camerys and Regals sporting spoilers on their trunk.

On the other hand, a lot of supercars are mid engine (or depending on your
definition of 'supercar' sometimes rear-engined) and this dictates some of the
features.

------
codeddesign
Everyone is talking about gaps, manufacturing limitations, etc..

Growing up in the Detroit area where literally everyone works for the big 3 or
a molding plant for them, I guess I could give a little more insight...

The answer is a lot simpler. Car companies have a pre-defined set of models. A
lot of work and planning goes into new models. Part of that planning is a pre-
determined quota of estimated cars sold during 6 months, 12, 24, etc. if they
don't feel they can hit this rather large quota, the project is scrapped.

So..to answer the question: It's because cars are built to favor the mass
general public, both visually and on price-point. People have so many
different tastes that it turns out this task is rather quite hard. Ferraris
are a niche product, even if they were sold for $20k the Impala would still
outsell it by leaps and bound (assuming a Ferrari and Impala were both sold by
chevy and that Ferrari didn't have a huge luxury reputation behind it).

It's simply to appeal to the masses to sell millions of cars.

------
garyfirestorm
this is coming from a mechanical engineer working at one of the big 3's in
Detroit. the car development process is very expensive. making one part
affects lot of different parameters, for e.g. change in hood design will
affect aerodynamics, noise paths, crash, durability, manufacturing complexity,
cost of each part {bold}, fuel economy. in car industry, people fight for
every dollar that is spent on a car. for a consumer, a simple led costs 1$,
but for a manufacturer, if they sell half a million cars, the expenditure is
very high. changing anything on a car platform is very expensive, aesthetics
are not always priority. on other note, i think the ford fusions look like
aston martins. kia interiors are very close to Audi's.

------
tyingq
People buy Ferraris for the status as much as the performance.

Something that looks the part but doesn't have the gravitas just doesn't
appeal to a large enough audience.

Pantera tried to make something like a cheap Ferrari in the 1970's. It was
about $10k when average cars were $3k, and a Ferrari was $20k+. It did okay,
but not a spectacular success.

And, there have been a few cars that tried to look the part, without the
performance, but they did about the same. Pontiac's Fiero, for example.

Basically, the people that want that look also want you to think they paid a
lot of money.

~~~
pmontra
This, and if it's cheap at least it must be as fast as the real thing or
faster, to silence the people laughing at the owner of what they think is a
fake.

~~~
tyingq
Good point. You can do well if you make a relatively inexpensive fast car, and
you don't even need to make it look like a supercar to run with that pack.

The Mitsubishi Evo has been highly successful, and keeps up with much pricier
cars...even bone stock, with no performance parts added. It looks like a
typical 4 door economy car with some spoilers added.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees2aZcDUn8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees2aZcDUn8)
(BBC's Top Gear: Evo on a track versus a Lamborghini)

Add a bigger turbo and these things are scary fast.

Edit: That golf below is hilarious, but wouldn't fare well on a road that
wasn't straight.

~~~
XorNot
Of course, you could also have any type of car and just get dominated by
someone who's crammed a huge HP engine into an old-looking Golf:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE5x9vlb0ss](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE5x9vlb0ss)

------
lobster_johnson
I don't know about supercars, but what about simply sleek, small sports cars?
Something like the Lotus Elan, Triumph Spitfire or the Porsche 911.

First-gen Mazda Miata is the only low-end car that I know that actually looks
reasonably sleek and designed (the second-gen looks like a stupid ordinary
car). It's no 911, but it has a nice retro charm.

A well-designed sports car doesn't need lots of power or anything else that
should be particularly expensive. It just needs to _look_ good.

There are many answers in this thread about performance, manufacturing
tolerances, undermining your high-end brand etc., but none of that should
apply here.

I'm asking partly because I think almost all modern cars are hideous, but I
also can't afford a 911.

~~~
justin66
There are four generations of Miata. I think the newest looks better than most
of the stuff on the street today, honestly. (how do you not like the Miata
RF?) It's all shockingly generic looking now, IMO. Somehow, incredibly,
Maseratis have become popular where I live, but they seem to have done it by
looking like Toyotas. (at least they still _sound_ incredible) Even Aston-
Martin and Jaguar make stuff that barely rates above "cool."

I spend a fair amount of time wondering why nobody makes anything with a more
bug-eyed look similar to either the classic 911 or even the classic 60s sports
cars (Lola, GT40, 904, etc.). Modern safety standards and crumple zones
probably have something to do with it.

~~~
lobster_johnson
The RF is pretty good looking, though the newer generations tend to have "evil
reptilian eyes"-type [1] headlights and bodies with a kind of blunt chunkiness
that a lot of modern cars have. I assume the intention is to impart a sense of
muscularity, but to me that just looks misguided and embarrassingly macho,
like the car equivalent of body building. I like the round front of the
version shown in this 2012 article, was it ever made? [2] The RF's hood has
those muscular side ridges which I think look terrible. Edit: The 2005 model
has a round front like that [3], and is less evil.

(Agreed about the rest. I don't really know cars, so before I commented I just
googled the various Miata generations and seem to have misread Wikipedia.)

[1] [http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/2016...](http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/2016-Mazda-MX-5-Miata-PLACEMENT.jpg)

[2] [http://www.autoevolution.com/news/next-gen-mazda-miata-
loses...](http://www.autoevolution.com/news/next-gen-mazda-miata-loses-weight-
to-gain-appeal-36326.html)

[3] [http://www.moibbk.com/images/mazda-mx5-miata-
black-3.jpg](http://www.moibbk.com/images/mazda-mx5-miata-black-3.jpg)

------
ScottBurson
As others have mentioned, there are some. My 1993 Toyota MR2 Turbo [0] bears
some resemblance to a Ferrari F355 [1].

As far as models currently on sale go, I think the prize for the best-looking
economy car easily goes to the Honda CR-Z [2]. Alas, as they say, its
performance can't cover the checks its styling writes, which is probably why
sales have been extremely poor. (You can get it with a performance package
including a centrifugal supercharger, but then it's $30k.)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1994_MkII_MR2_nbvolks.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1994_MkII_MR2_nbvolks.jpg)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_F355_(8735086047)...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferrari_F355_\(8735086047\)_\(cropped\).jpg)

[2] [http://images.hgmsites.net/hug/2015-honda-cr-
z_100477517_h.j...](http://images.hgmsites.net/hug/2015-honda-cr-
z_100477517_h.jpg)

~~~
sndean
> As far as models currently on sale go, I think the prize for the best-
> looking economy car easily goes to the Honda CR-Z

That and the Toyota/Subaru FRS/GT86/BRZ. At least a few times my heart rate
has increased a bit seeing those cars at a distance (from the front). Nice to
have Honda and Toyota making such good-looking cars

~~~
ScottBurson
Well, I wouldn't call that an economy car, but with 200hp I suppose it does
qualify as underpowered relative to a Ferrari. I agree, it is nice-looking.

------
ajmarsh
You could build one yourself for about 35k.

[http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/gtm-
supercar/](http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/gtm-supercar/)

------
SimonPStevens
Perhaps because supercars are ridiculously impractical. They are too low to
handle speed bumps, they are cramped inside and have little to no luggage or
passenger space.

Those tradeoffs are to make them fast. People who drive them care about
performance, and will likely have a second car for more general driving.

No one would want to buy a car that made those trade offs without getting the
performance in return.

~~~
Zak
A lot of people buy Mazda MX-5s. They can carry speed through corners pretty
well, but aren't really _fast_ by other metrics even compared to other cars in
the same price class. The first couple generations were slower to accelerate
than many midrange cars with essentially no sporting pretensions.

The MX-5 is _fun_ though. It _feels_ good to drive it at a moderately spirited
pace. Several attempts to compete with it have won hands down in every
significant performance metric, yet failed in the marketplace because they
just didn't feel as good to drive.

------
seshagiric
Really good question!

Costlier cars need to stand out from the ordinary. And to stand out designers
come up with fancy curves, shapes etc. From a manufacturing point of view
these 'non standard' items result in more cost which the mid-range cars cant
afford. For example there is more wastage in cutting a curvy door from the
sheet metal as compared to a standard rectangle shaped one.

It is interesting to note that as time goes by, what was fancy once eventually
becomes 'standard' and the features get into the mid-range priced cars as
well. Auto-shift is probably a good example. Automatic rear trunk opener is
another and so on.

~~~
Splines
> _It is interesting to note that as time goes by, what was fancy once
> eventually becomes 'standard' and the features get into the mid-range priced
> cars as well. Auto-shift is probably a good example. Automatic rear trunk
> opener is another and so on._

Is that because the high-end carmakers invest R&D in reducing costs of making
these fancy door panels, which trickles down into mid/low-end cars? (I've
heard similar things said for other more software-related car features like
traction control or abs, but I'm interested if this is also the case for
manufacturing)

~~~
robotmlg
> high-end carmakers invest R&D

A lot of high-end carmakers these days are owned by big car-manufacturer
conglomerates. For example, Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Bugatti, Bentley,
Audi, and Porsche; Chrysler owns Maserati and owned Ferrari until a couple
years ago; Ford owned Jaguar and Aston Martin in the 90s and 00s. So the
trickle-down is really very direct: From the luxury makes of a conglomerate
into the consumer makes.

------
urs2102
Additionally, outside of the complexity required to bend the alloy to shape a
Ferrari - I would imagine a car that looks like a Ferrari, but behaves like a
Civic would feel ridiculous, or out of place, from a cultural standpoint (much
like driving an F1 car around your neighborhood).

I think sports cars balance their aesthetics as a compliment to their
function, whereas a Mazda dressed like a Lamborghini would almost feel "phony"
as the aesthetic value would not be in line with functional purpose of the car
at all. Thus, they are optimized for their functionality, which is to store
stuff and to be safe.

~~~
tyingq
>I would imagine a car that looks like a Ferrari, but behaves like a Civic
would feel ridiculous or out of place

You are correct...they do:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=pontiac+fiero&espv=2&source=...](https://www.google.com/search?q=pontiac+fiero&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=opel+gt&espv=2&source=lnms&t...](https://www.google.com/search?q=opel+gt&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X)

~~~
seanp2k2
Economy and practical cars are getting more racy looks these days too though,
because not everyone wants to drive a half-gallon-of-milk-tipped-over minivan
just because they're practical.

The new Camary actually looks desirable IMO:
[http://toyotanews.pressroom.toyota.com/album_display.cfm?alb...](http://toyotanews.pressroom.toyota.com/album_display.cfm?album_id=1157&section_id=421)

2018 Accord also looks nice [http://www.accordrelease.com/2016/03/2018-honda-
accord-full-...](http://www.accordrelease.com/2016/03/2018-honda-accord-full-
specification.html?m=1)

The new Civic hatch looks like some kind of military vehicle
[http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-
hatchback](http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-hatchback)

So, at least they're trying to make the econoboxes somewhat sexy.

------
Ifkaluva
The premise of the quedtion is wrong--they do make these cars. See the Scion
FRS. Also Subaru has a car that looks just like it, but I cannot remember the
name.

Also I would argue the Mazda Miata targets this style, and I have seen a Honda
car that looks quite similar to the Miata as well.

~~~
Zak
_I have seen a Honda car that looks quite similar to the Miata as well_

That would be the S2000. It was a bit upmarket from the Miata and remained on
the market longer (10 years) than anything else that tried to compete head to
head with the Miata.

~~~
seanp2k2
Gosh, I'd love another S2K. Hopefully once the Supra launches, Honda will be
more motivated to do a more hardcore sports car, possibly with the Type R
Civic drivetrain in a RWD roadster configuration.

------
avenoir
Typical super-car designs embrace wider chassis and lower-sitting suspension.
Both are impractical for daily driving. Not to mention the absence of space
for occupants or lack of trunk space. Try to sit in any coupe with the second
row of seats and you'll instantly feel like a sardine.

I think an even bigger issue is that you can't have a car with the super-car
design but without the matching horsepower. They just wouldn't sell. And if
you added the corresponding horsepower you all of a sudden created something
that most people won't be able to drive daily without major safety concerns,
which is why these cars are in their own class to begin with. I drive a
modified WRX with slightly over 300 ponies and I can tell you that when i
first started driving it there were times when i'd gun it to get around
someone and would just have a hard time slowing the car down. Same with taking
quick turns where giving a bit of gas can send your car for a wild spin. This
is why youtube is full of lambo and ferrari owners crashing their cars while
trying to show off at intersections and turns beause people have no idea how
to drive with so much horsepower lol

~~~
pixelbash
Lotus Elise, BRZ, Alpha 4C, and others are very nice cars with lower
horsepower to match the handling. It's nice to be able to drive something to
it's full potential without electronics or loss of license. I haven't owned
any of these cars but I do own a 600cc sport bike. Modern 200+ hp litrebikes
are now mostly just computers on wheels.

~~~
seanp2k2
And let's not forget the Miata! The best compromise IMO is to have a dedicated
sports car (2-seater, manual transmission, low, light, optionally with
ridiculous power depending on budget) and a second vehicle for everything
else, like a Honda Element (wish they still made those, compact but roomy,
handles well for what it is, truck bed liner in the interior, many seats if
you need them) or a quad-cab pickup if you need to e.g. tow heavier stuff.
There are some ideas like fast station wagons (Volvo v40 Polestar for ~$60k,
automatic only, WRX STI wagon that they don't make anymore, E63 AMG wagon at
>$100k also automatic only), fast trucks (SVT Raptor, Chevy SSR, SRT10 RAM),
or hot hatches (A45 AMG, M140i, Audi RS1, Megane Trophy-R, Astra VXR, Leon
Cupra, Civic Type R, none of which are available in the US...we get the GLA45
which is higher and handles worse, and the M240i which is a coupe), sporty
SUVs (Cayenne, Macan, X5M, etc who cares), but all make huge compromises and
end up mostly being heavy and/or expensive. For ~$50k new, you could have a
real sports car and a real truck or utility vehicle.

------
SQL2219
You can't haul people or stuff in a Ferrari. The largest selling vehicle in
USA is a pickup truck.

~~~
emodendroket
Judging by the number of those that have pristine paint jobs I'd say
practicality is not the only reason people buy pickups.

------
pjc50
Arguably this is what Delorean tried to do. But think: what are the advantages
of the shape, as opposed to the rest of the Ferrari-ness? It looks cool. What
are the disadvantages? Well, you lose a lot of luggage space and visibility,
and you have a _low_ driving position. People seem generally to prefer a high
driving position - it's why SUVs are so popular.

There are a few intermediaries; the Jaguar X-Type is a Ford Mondeo with a
Jaguar badge and some trim improvements. Personally my favourite was the
Pininfarina-designed Peugeot 306 Cabriolet; it's not a Ferrari, it's an
affordable sportscar that goes in at the sides and is done by the same
designer.

There's also something to be said for cutting your own style rather than
trying to be an imitator. People don't respect imitation. Few people _want_ to
drive a car known for being specifically for those who can't afford Ferraris.

~~~
toyg
_> People don't respect imitation. Few people want to drive a car [...] for
those who can't afford Ferraris._

I thought so too, but on the other hand, the success of cheap wannabe SUVs
like the Qashqai shows that the "aspirational" market can be very rewarding if
you can find the right balance.

It's a bit like nobody wants an iPhone-like chinese replica, but quality
Android "slabs" can be very desirable.

------
hprotagonist
Because, not very secretly, supercars are horrible daily drivers. It's a
different use case.

------
threesixandnine
Fiat 124 Spider that is practically a Mazda comes close imo. Especially Abarth
version.

~~~
byoung2
Isn't the 124 actually made on the same assembly line as the Miata MX-5?

Edit: yes it is
[http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-fiat-124-spider...](http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-fiat-124-spider-
abarth-vs-2016-mazda-mx-5-miata-club-comparison-test)

------
gaze
Because it's dishonest. You also get all the discomfort and impracticality of
a supercar with none of the benefits. You just project some status until
people discover what car you're actually driving.

~~~
ScottBurson
Somehow honesty does not seem the most salient characteristic of major car
manufacturers.

~~~
toyg
I think he was talking about the car owner being dishonest towards his peers.

------
pascalxus
There is a middle class car shaped like a ferrari: The Lotus Elise and even
more so, the Alfa Romeo 4C. Now let's see what happens when they do this: No
one buys it! Wow. It seems, relatively few people want that. And with such a
small number of people, car companies don't have the economies of scale to
build those cars.

Car enthusiasts make up a small percentage of the car market, even here in
America. People want practical, with a bit of badge.

And there are other really awesomely styled cars: Hyundai Veloster, SLK 55 AMG
and I don't see these selling out really fast.

------
maxander
As other answers have essentially already said- because Ferrari is a brand,
and past a certain price point brand names often matter more than the physical
object. Its the same in cars as in designer handbags.

The opposite question is equally interesting; why doesn't Ferrari produce a
relatively cheap car, so that they can offer the Ferrari cachet to a broader
market? Presumably as to not dilute their brand. But it means we might see
such a thing if the company starts having problems (e.g., finds itself
competing against superior electric vehicles or similar.)

~~~
dagw
_Its the same in cars as in designer handbags._

But for basically any given designer handbag I can find dozens of bags at a
fraction of the price which are largely indistinguishable from the original if
you're standing across the street.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
The basic function and use of both purses are basically indistinguishable -
the customer's needs are the same in both products.

Sporty-looking cars that are low-to-mid priced really can't afford to handle
like a sports car, since it is likely to be someone's main car - or back up
when a car is in the shop. The expensive car is likely to be difficult to
handle, especially in city driving and on the snow/ice. In addition, some of
the cars perform poorly in city landscapes with potholes and speed bumps. If
you've the money for the high-end car, those thigns are likely less of an
issue.

In other words, the customer's needs are different with the cars. Now, I'm not
an expert, but I don't think you can get the same sort of look/feel while
still making it a practical enough car for the lower end market.

~~~
maxander
Not the low-end market, no, cars require a bit more technical expertise than
handbags. But I imagine you'll find that there are cars 2/3rds the price of
any given Ferrari model that have roughly the same level of performance, from
objective measurements. In which case you're "only" paying something like 30k
to participate in the word "Ferrari."

------
cardiffspaceman
As an example of what happens when this is attempted, I give you the
Mistubishi GTO (AKA 3000 GT overseas, and also Dodge Stealth in USA) [1]
According to someone's dogged research it seems that 130K units were sold
during its existence [2]. According to an annoyed woman's opinion I heard on
the street, "Eeewww it looks like a Ferrari". I know that the cheapest Stealth
version sold for under $20K in 1991. The Wikipedia article mentions the
various competitors, several of which have strong followings to this day, and
of which at least one has been semi-revived. I of course did own one of the
cheapest models of the Stealth. I personally consider the most engaging
alternative to be the ca-1991 300Z, which was too expensive for me, but still
I think a middle-class car.

I think the current middle-class gearhead car is either a full-on Q-ship (it's
fast but you can't tell by looking), or a sports sedan like BMW 3xx or Audi
A4. Whether that is because no more hatchback coupes are sold or because
customers decided to give up hatchback coupes I do not know.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO)

[2]
[http://www.suthnr.com/garage/3s-production.html](http://www.suthnr.com/garage/3s-production.html)

------
closeparen
Ferrari is maybe extreme.

Warning: pure speculation.

In general, car companies have luxury divisions. They prefer to maintain a
separation between the "look and feel" of their middle class and luxury cars
to maintain demand for the higher-margin luxury products.

Mazda does not, which is why they make some of the best-looking middle class
cars on the market today.

------
maxsavin
Probably because most consumers want something average / something that
doesn't draw that kind of attention.

------
tezza
Styling costs money.

The Ferrari is styled by Pinnfarina.

A mate at Ford said Pinnfarina are just too expensive for most cars.

The Peugeot 306 Cabriolet was styled by Pinnfarina[1] and it showed. Awesome
looking car

[1]
[http://www.fridae.asia/autoclub/20091102.html](http://www.fridae.asia/autoclub/20091102.html)

------
Nomentatus
I've got some ad copy ready for you if you decide to produce one: "You'll
begin to hear the laughter the moment you step into your brand new Poseur 550
Sports-ish car. And for some time thereafter, since the acceleration is barely
discernable."

------
Animats
There's a kit car industry for that.[1]

The Ford Mustang was a middle-class sports car. Models are still in
production. Lee Iaccoca pushed that product line forward. It was cheap to
build and popular with young people. Any Chevy dealer can sell you a Corvette.
Fiat-Chrysler makes the 124 Spyder, with list price under $25K.

None of them sell all that well. But they're all available.

[1] [http://www.kitcarlist.com/ferrari-replica-
kits.html](http://www.kitcarlist.com/ferrari-replica-kits.html)

------
mgarfias
It's called a corvette

------
scotty79
Why would you make a car that has less space inside while it takes same amount
of outside space?

[https://www.google.pl/search?q=ferrari+lusso&source=lnms&tbm...](https://www.google.pl/search?q=ferrari+lusso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMvve68dbRAhWEDCwKHcNnAWgQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=760&gws_rd=cr&ei=pj2FWK3LNoqPsAGYxY-
gBA)

The only reason would be, because some people would pay to have less space.
There are not a lot of people like that.

------
ap3
There is also the fake Ferrari market out there

Ferrary body and a cheap car underneath

------
grubles
I've always loved the 3000GT (the American version of the GTO).[0] There's a
new iteration of it hopefully being released this year.[1]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO)

[1][http://automotrends.com/new-2017-mitsubishi-3000gt-
release-d...](http://automotrends.com/new-2017-mitsubishi-3000gt-release-
date/)

------
nnn1234
Excellent insights from the replies. I would like to offer my own. There is a
philosophy that says design for function. Let's say there is a sleek shape for
a car that does not walk the talk, what are the social aspects of owning that
car? Think of modded watches , or the Toyota Celica, with a little
modification it can be made to look like a decent sports car , would you buy
it if it didn't perform?

------
billconan
I thought about the same thing! I was excited about concept cars, but bored by
their mass production counterpart. I always thought that I don't care about
the engine or the interior, I would buy it just because of the shape.

I'm also into jeep wrangler. but I it's too fuel hungry. I wonder why they
don't make a version without any off road capability with smaller engine but
same body style, I would buy it.

------
krona
Isn't the obvious answer that it's illegal? Case in point:
[https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/91ferr1.html](https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/91ferr1.html)

More information:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress)

~~~
dlp211
I don't think OP intended to mean exact replica, but more or less, why aren't
mid-range sedans made to look more like the exotics. In other words, more
corvettes, less impalas.

~~~
krona
It's more nuanced than that though, because OP presumably is not talking about
a specific model, but rather one with the likeness (and possibly sound) of a
Ferrari.

For example, I don't know what the next Porsche model is, but I know I'll be
able to recognize it when I see it because they are so distinctive.

See what happens in places where such trademark protections don't exist:
[http://www.carnewschina.com/2016/11/11/zotye-sr9-porsche-
mac...](http://www.carnewschina.com/2016/11/11/zotye-sr9-porsche-macan-clone-
launched-on-the-chinese-car-market/)

------
vermontdevil
Have you seen Zenos?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_Cars#Zenos_E10S](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenos_Cars#Zenos_E10S)

No it's not like Ferrari but the concept seems cool. Build carbon fiber cars
with Ford engines and sell for a good price. No roof or openable doors though.

------
Mikeb85
Because it's a terribly inefficient use of space if you have any needs beyond
going fast. Most of us drive much, much slower than a Ferrari is capable of,
and carry more people and things than a Ferrari can.

Btw, an example of a 'middle class' Ferrari is the Alfa Romeo 4c.

------
slantaclaus
Hyundai does this to an extent making some of their models look kind of like
Bentleys. Ford has done this somewhat making some of their models look like
Aston Martins. The one thing missing in this is the removal of the "Hyundai"
and "Ford" logos...

------
arethuza
There used to be a fairly inexpensive car, I think it was the Hyandai Coupe,
that had an advert where they showed it next to the Ferrari 456 and the two
did look very similar.

[Actually that reminded me of a QC that my wife knew who did commute in his
456].

------
tclAmockingbird
One point not yet mentioned is that the Ferrari shape is assisted by the
engine placement and drive configuration. A front-engine and front-drive
Hyundai has too much packaged under the hood to shape similar to a Ferrari.

------
doall
How about Mitsuoka Orochi? Maybe not middle class but not pure supercar.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsuoka_Orochi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsuoka_Orochi)

------
pentae
I think the same market that is interested in the Toyota 86, Subaru BRZ or
Miata would be interested in a car like you describe - but with more
horsepower and with a mid mounted engine. Like a poor mans Porsche Cayman.

------
stcredzero
_I always wondered why car companies like Mazda or Hyundai or Honda don 't
produce cars that may not have the performance capabilities of a Ferrari but
resemble one in their shape?_

Google the "Fiero".

------
sorokod
Maybe because they need to deliver functionality beyond projecting status.

------
bassman9000
Must customers request bigger, roomier, comfier cars.

Ferrari shapes have purpose beyond aesthetic (aerodynamics are critical in
sports carts), and severely limit the options inside.

------
teolemon
So where does the Tesla Model 3 fit in ?
[https://www.tesla.com/model3](https://www.tesla.com/model3)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
What do you mean? It's not as if the Model 3 offers anything near Ferrari-
level design nor performance. In my (admittedly biased, like anyone's)
opinion, designwise it's very similar to the Mazda 3 4-door sedan:
[https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan](https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan)

And before you quote 0-60 times: they are a tiny, tiny part of performance; if
you look at actual racetrack performance, even the Model S P100D is miles
behind a Ferrari, it's behind the top-spec Honda Civic in Nurburgring lap
times. Which Tesla don't even measure nor publish, unlike all other sports car
manufacturers ever. The Model 3 will be even worse off.

Come to think of it, we used to have a word for big, heavy American cars that
go fast in a straight line and not otherwise: muscle cars.

~~~
justin66
> And before you quote 0-60 times: they are a tiny, tiny part of performance;
> if you look at actual racetrack performance

Benchmarking has been on my mind this morning. I think you're pretty clearly
off base here with your "tiny, tiny part of performance" comment.

0-60 times roughly reflect what people will see when they're getting on to the
freeway. It's a useful exercise to contemplate how often people get on to the
freeway and how often they drive around Nürburgring, or any race track.

This point pretty much holds true even among sports car owners. Guys who track
their cars are very much an exception. (and for the most common case of that,
drag racing, the Tesla you were putting down actually performs quite well)

------
Ifkaluva
What about Scion FRS?

------
pjbrunet
I bet if you showed random slides of red Nissans and blue Ferraris to college
students, the Nissans would be mistaken for Ferraris more than expected.

------
wiredfool
Do you remember the Pontiac Fiero?

Nice looking car (for the time), underperformed, had a habit of catching on
fire.

~~~
Haven_Monahan
As mentioned upthread & here, yes, the early Fieros did have a habit of
catching fire. There were primarily two reasons for this:

GM refused to budget for a new engine for the car-it never really wanted to
have a two-seater outside the Corvette, but after the second gas crisis, the
turkish engineer who'd been agitating for what would become the Fiero sold it
to management as an economic commuter car.

The idea was to save money by using components (including the existing engine)
from GM's A-body front-wheel-drive sedans, amongst others. The Pontiac 2.5L
engine was too tall to fit properly in the mid-engined Fiero, and with no
money for a complete redesign, the solution was to install a shallower oil
pan, making the whole engine run a quart low (at least) at all times. That
four was also not especially resistant to burning/leaking oil; so it was
always a risk that the engine would be starved of lubricant, overheat, seize
and catch fire.

I also understand that there were problems with the factory wiring on the
electric radiator fans, such that airflow was never properly managed in the
engine compartment, leading to... overheating and fire.

These problems were eventually fixed, but a reputation for burning up at
stoplights is a hard one to overcome with normal consumers.

(I say 'normal consumers' here. Lamborghini has made many fire-prone models,
but Lamborghini buyers are Not Normal.)

~~~
jeremy7600
Radiator is at the front of the car, not in the engine compartment. If you
bottomed out, you could break your coolant lines, as I had done with mine 20
years ago.

------
RichardHeart
Cool shapes usually encroach on interior space. The most space efficient
vehicle that you could fit in a parking spot would be cubic shaped, perhaps
not so pretty or aerodynamic. A better question might be, why are these new
cars so terribly ugly in general. Like the Pontiac Aztek and Citroen Picasso.

------
bsvalley
\- Acura (luxury branch of Honda) has the NSX.

\- Mazda, coming up with a new RX concept

\- Hyundai... no comment

------
bootload

       "I don't sell cars; I sell engines. 
        The cars I throw in for free since 
        something has to hold the engines in."
    

People never quite get the ideas behind Enzo Ferrari machines.

------
WalterBright
The Datsun Z car was modeled after the Ferrari Daytona.

------
Synaesthesia
Maybe the future of cars should be towards cheaper and more efficient rather
than fancy looking designs and unnecessary performance.

~~~
linksnapzz
Maybe Soylent will be what everyone eats...

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I've often wondered about that. In fact, I've come up with an utterly
ridiculous theory to explain it, which is total bull but quite entertaining,
so here goes:

My theory, let's call it Automobile Honest Aposematism theory (AHA), in short,
posits that market forces compell car manufacturers to honestly signal the
quality of their cars with the cars' design and colouring, or risk financial
punishment meted by disappointed consumers.

In short, producing a cheap-o car that looks like a Ferrari would cause
consumers to punish the car maker responsible, obviously by not buying their
product, but also these days by ridiculing the cheap fascimile in social media
etc.

In the animal world, it is understood that signalling of various attributes
(aggression, mating fitness etc) is predominantly honest, despite the obvious
advantages of false signalling, and there is work suggesting that this honesty
is maintained by punishment [1] [2] [3] (but note [5]).

There is also an alternative interpretation of AHA, the Handicap Alternative
to AHA (HA-AHA) which posits that sports' cars' design is an example of the
Handicap Principle [4], according to which high-cost singalling is only
affordable by the truly fit, or in other words, you'll only be flash with your
car designs and colours if you can afford to be flash.

The two interpretations are not necessarily competing: selling a cheap car for
a lot of money to cover the high cost of its high-quality, but dishonest,
signalling will very likely incur a harsh punishment by market forces.

And, er. That's AHA in a nutshell :)

____________________

[1] Evolution of Honest Signaling by Social Punishment

[https://ai.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/camready_0.pdf](https://ai.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/camready_0.pdf)

[2] Social punishment of dishonest signalers caused by mismatch between signal
and behavior.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20727756](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20727756)

[3] A socially enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15538369](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15538369)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle)

[5] There are also examples of cheating behaviour that does not incur
penalties; see Batesian Mimicry:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry)

However, this is more applicable to cross-species, rather than intra-species,
behaviour, unlike in the case of paper wasps where it concerns competition
between members of the same genus.

------
FractalNerve
My uncle is building prototypes for a large company that produces parts for
most german cars (I can't disclose where or at which company, sorry). And he
worked there half his life, so he knows a thing or two. I asked him the same
question and he laughed at me, saying that it's a dumb question. I was
flabbergasted at his answer. He continued, by saying how it's against the
interest of any car manufacturer to undermine their own business with such
"flsah-sale" like hot product. It would create "unwanted dynamics" (I think he
meant competition, but I'm not sure). Also he asked why would you buy a cheap
supercar? I said, because it looks good and brings me from a to b. He then
asked, what happens if everbody drives the same cheap supercar? I said it's
not bugging me, but it would bug others probably. He alluded that it may be
different now, but we won't do that. All of my friends at the management level
know about this and we don't focus on this problem anymore.

I've summed up (hopefully correctly) some of the most compelling arguments
here and tried to bring counter arguments. Which I'll elaborate below the
list.

• Tolerances can be solved by optimization (CAD + Solver / +EA-Algorithm /
+ML) @giarc

• Goal Oriented Design and Years of Experience don't hinder a great looking
body and frame @heavymark @markbnj

• Outer body and frame have no such limiting influence on the interior design
@dagw

• 3rd party party reliance is a thing, but you could overcome most of these
price drags by using alternatives, 3d printing or self-fabrication @byoung2
anyway that's a good argument @DeBraid I agree, but altough it answers the
question it doesn't feel satifying for our curiousity

• Yes, the industry's car design tools don't help with parameter complexity
@garyfirestorm you are right there, sir. We need better integrated tooling and
part optimizers/solvers.

• Status and Image is important, thus such gravitas have some, but it's not
the deal-breaking argument @tyingq You can do it like Asus and create
Apple'esque hardware at the fraction of a cost and thrive due to the price
gap.

• "Because it's dishonest. You also get all the discomfort and impracticality
of a supercar with none of the benefits. You just project some status until
people discover what car you're actually driving." @gaze I don't understand
what you mean here to be honest, can you elaborate?

Arguing with tolerances just means that the design process isn't automated or
not integrated into the production process properly. Otherwisee there would be
a user friendly solver and optimization tool for CAD that uses Evolutionary-
Algorithms, a Contraint-Solver and/or Machine-Learning.

Simply put you can use an existing battle tested car and just change the body
with a supercar alike one. This usually means also you have better and not
worse aerodynamics (given that you don't blindly ignore aerodynamics just for
a better looks).

And who (in his right mind) drives 300Km/h at all on American Streets? That's
just unneccsary and arriving 1-5min earlier is no compelling reason for
driving at such risky speeds. It's not even allowed from what I know, except
in Germany (where I live), but even here we don't usually go significantly
over 220Km/h for short periods of time. Thus a big enging and huge horsepower
isn't even the selling point of a SuperCar per se, but it's looks and
exclusivity.

Tl;Dr Answer: One conclusion I derive is that the Car Design Process and Car
Production Process, altough almost fully automated, are really not well
integrated and appear to lack essential, albeit usually complex to use tools
like Machine-Learning/EAs and Contraint-Solvers. The Industry needs a change
urgently in this area, but it's already been explored from what I know :)

------
pbhjpbhj
OP, would you buy one? Why?

------
dorfsmay
Not comfortable

No space for grocery

Can't put carseats

------
ebbv
There's a number of reasons. Those cars are expensive to manufacture and
making an affordable car that looks like that is extremely difficult. You'd
have to cut costs elsewhere compared to a more "boring" looking car.

Additionally part of why those cars look cool is that they are very low to the
ground and generally sacrifice visibility (especially rearward) for aesthetics
and aerodynamics. People buying mid range cars want something more practical,
even in a sports car.

The last thing I would point out is that modern affordable sports cars do have
more complex body panels, lights, bigger wheels, etc compared to affordable
sports cars of the past. Body construction techniques make their way from
exotics down to affordable cars over time much like engine technology. But the
exotics will always be ahead. That's one of the things you can do if you are
targeting a $100k+ price point.

------
jackmott
toyota mrs

