[Closed] Why do manufacturers make cars look sporty...

To make people feel better

So they can charge you more for individualization! To show how special you are.

And then you come to sell - but no-one wants your Fiat 500 with a pink roof, blue wing mirrors and orange bonnet stripes. 🙂

Specific outputs have shot up in recent years.

100bhp/litre is now fairly standard when in the 80's that was supercar territory.

As an example a 2.9litre Sierra had 140bhp - I've got a 1.5 litre car that matches it for power and exceeds it on torque.

So, yes, tiny engines but actually reasonably fast compared with cars of yore.

And then you come to sell – but no-one wants your Fiat 500 with a pink roof, blue wing mirrors and orange bonnet stripes.

You're going to have to invest in a respray if you really need to sell it.

for the record I have a 4.2 V8 S4 and I only do about a 2000 miles a year so hardly causing trees to die.

Come on now, even with only 2K per year you could get through of a few rubber trees with that amount of grunt.

Some people like the styling but don't necessarily want or require their car to be massively powerful.

What is a 'sports' car, then? Most road cars seem to spend their time sat in traffic anyway, or catching up the next slow moving queue. A 4.2 V8 or a 1.2 3 cylinder has very little bearing on journey time.

I liftshare with a bloke who owns a 911 & a Kia Sorrento. The commute takes the same time, regardless of what car we take. You could argue that the Kia is marginally faster, because we don't have to slow down over speed bumps.

I have been pondering this very same topic for about a year, I still can’t understand the need to make something Sporty when it’s clearly not.

I’ll start with bashing BMW, this will no doubt provoke consternation and recrimination but we have to start somewhere and this brand are known for thier mimicking of sporty desires..

3 series other than the proper M3.

The rest of the range are mid tier engined family cars, there is no need to put skirts or badges or bumper splitters or 28” alloys on it. Just make it have 17” wheels with fat tyres on it, take the stupid bumpers off, make the headlights fully round and not those ridiculously slanted down frowny Mr Angry Face things they have on now.

Audi, another brand that stick massive alloys and stupid suspension and back crippling seats in anything with an S-Line badge on A4/5/6 A1/2, and frankly that’s pointless, they are blob carriers with no sporty intentions whatsoever. Take all the crap off them, make them what they are just a normal people moving machine and make them efficient and easy to drive..

As for “sporting up” SUVs!! What a pointless designed image vacuum they are. I totally get the SUV, to me it’s a wonderful piece of design and effective at what it does, but sticking 46” wheels on them and making seats barely usable and bumpers that drag on the ground is frankly an oxymoron.

I drive an SUV, it isn’t sporty in anyway whatsoever, but I admit some of the design ques on it do veer towards some faux sporty intentions.. which is a joke.

Good topic.

Because it sells cars. Simple, but then I suspect you knew that.

Because the style looks good, they sell and as you've pointed out it's the engine that makes them 'sports cars'.

I'm not sure the look has ever just been exclusive to the faster versions.

It's like why do kids lower their shitty hatches, stick big noisy exhausts on and bling them up.

They did it in the olden days too. I give you the 1.6L Capri Laser - sporty, but as slow as ****!...

It's not a sports car unless it has a Janspeed exhaust.

I had one on a mini that kept falling off. Most notably when been followed by a police car.

Specific outputs have shot up in recent years.

100bhp/litre is now fairly standard when in the 80’s that was supercar territory.

As an example a 2.9litre Sierra had 140bhp – I’ve got a 1.5 litre car that matches it for power and exceeds it on torque.

So, yes, tiny engines but actually reasonably fast compared with cars of yore

True outputs have gone up, what does your 1.5litre car weigh compared to the Sierra

The Ford Sierra was a bit pants power wise from memory, I had a Sapphire.

The reality is, most cars, spend most of there lives stationery, so it makes no difference if it goes fast, as long as it looks the part.

Marketing.  next.

"Back in the 80s different models had different looks L , GL, GLX GTS etc each manufacturer had its own branding"

Back in the 80's my Dad bought a Vauxhall Cavalier LX (i think).  Basically the sports kit on a completely standard 1.6 car - spoiler on the back, stripe down the side, low profile alloy wheels (with stupid short tyre life) and recaro seats.

The wheels were smart, the seats comfy and it came in a really nice dark metallic blue.

I still can’t understand the need to make something Sporty when it’s clearly not.

Given that 'racing' is illegal on public roads and even the lowest powered bottom of the range model in the range is capable of exceeding the motorway speed limit, and given the number of road deaths and serious injuries each year I can't understand why manufacturers are allowed to market cars in a way that encourages dangerous and illegal driving.

All that extra grip and superior handling that these 'sports' cars are meant to have, yet you frequently see them wrapped around street furniture. Anecdotally, more than you see cars that havent been ****ed up.  It's really curious.

Endless gammon complaints about speeding cyclists racing on public roads (when what they're seeing is a non-competitive club run) yet none about cars marketed as 'racing'.

Er, why do designers design things to make them sell to the public. Dat is a weelly hard kweschun innit.

It’s a good question.

If designers need a topic of reference, then make a vehicle do what it should do in the most effective and efficient manner. Not sharpen 2b’s and protractor the gillingham out of it.

If Sporty design was taken out of the equation, and designers and manufacturers gave the public an effective efficient and drivable “thing” people would still buy cars.. people need cars and if effective and efficient designs were the only option people would go “oh, ok... Holly still needs to go to school, that looks easy to get in/out of and it does xx to the litre and the lights work and the seats are comfortable and it hardly makes a noise when driving on Britain’s pot holed gravel road network... I’ll buy one”

Take my money.

These A4/6 S-line back breakers are image vacuums, you instantly know who the driver is, how they vote in elections and what thier moral backbone consists of.

I suppose it’s designers way of ringfencing a section of the public that can be easily identified.

First and foremost, because that's what consumers want.

Secondly, people who actually care about performance are a dying breed - in the 90s when I first started to drive, most Lads and some Women, but not many said to themselves "I've got £x, how fast can I go?" and maybe "how much insurance I can bare to pay".

Mate of mine bought his Son a Swift Sport for his first car, If we'd been in his position at 17 we would have been giddy with excitement, a God amongst Men, well Boys, in School and probably had it on it's roof inside a week - all he cared about was "does it have Bluetooth?".

When we were Car shopping last year, most models don't even list performance stats, PCP rate, Co2 and MPG are all consumers care about these days. Pick the one you like the look of, pick a colour you like (or just have a white one if you're over stretching yourself a bit) and hope it does 80mpg.

And I don't think it's blind ignorance to the thrill of 'making progress' either, because unless you fancy a track day, or head out the countryside at 5am at make a nuisance of yourself when do you get to use your "0-60 in 4 secs"? Hypothetically when you're comparing yourself to the stranger in the car next to you, that's when.

Either it’s a sports car or it’s not !

Erm, binary-thinking FAIL?

Unless you can draw a line...at what? 0-60? bhp/ton? Is that just up to you? Do all non-sport cars have to have 4" wide steel wheels, and all sports cars 8-12" alloys and lo-pro tyres?

What a daft statement.

Image engineering.  You want a sportier look but can't afford (or don't want the running costs of) the halo model in the range.  Loads of manufacturers do it.

M-Sport

S-Line

AMG

ST-Line

R-Line

etc etc.

You get some truly daft cars as a result

318d M-Sport anyone - suspension to keep a dentist happy and 140bhp!

BMW used to be at least fairly honest with the exhausts.  You only got separate double exhausts on something with at least 6 cylinders.  Now you can spec your 320D with all the bling you like.

Don't get me started on 4 cylinder hatchbacks with quad exhausts either

I had a car that actually had the word “Sport”on the back in shiny chrome letters.

It weighed the thick end of three tonnes and took about 12 seconds to reach 60 mph.

It looked like this.....

https://s.aolcdn.com/commerce/autodata/images/CAB80NIS071C0101.jp g" alt="" width="375" height="250" />

That’s still a sports car, right?

If Sporty design was taken out of the equation, and designers and manufacturers gave the public an effective efficient and drivable “thing” people would still buy cars.. people need cars and if effective and efficient designs were the only option people would go “oh, ok… Holly still needs to go to school, that looks easy to get in/out of and it does xx to the litre and the lights work and the seats are comfortable and it hardly makes a noise when driving on Britain’s pot holed gravel road network… I’ll buy one”

Take my money.

I'm thinking of buying a Dacia Duster as well. Oh, wait, you don't own one?

Because if they didn't we would all be driving cars like this

Specific outputs have shot up in recent years.

100bhp/litre is now fairly standard when in the 80’s that was supercar territory.

Honda was producing 100Bhp/litre engines in the 80s and outputs have only increased as manufacturers have learnt to use turbos to fudge emissions.
Sierra is a good shout; the turbo was 100Bhp/litre back in 1986.

I have a 4.2 V8 S4 and I only do about a 2000 miles a year

Buy a less shit car and you'll want to drive it more. 🙂

so hardly causing trees to die.

It is still grotesquely unnecessary. You could have built two cars from the same materials.

Why are there cars on the road that can do in excess of twice the national speed limit?

Coz hot babes

L , GL, GLX GTS

I used to love some of the weird rationing of spec to justify the price gap between badges.

At the low end of the spectrum things like the original Fiat Panda were pretty lowly specced anyway. But at the bottom of the range they had no door on the glove box, at the top end you got a locking glove box. Below that one  you got  a glovebox door but no lock. My friend had one just above base spec model. It didn't have the glove box door... but it did have the hinges

Why are there cars on the road that can do in excess of twice the national speed limit?

So people like me can drive at twice the limit.

There are plenty of laws out there that exist to protect the less functioning in society that can quite comfortably be ignored by the rest of us. Take drugs for example. 🙂

I used to love some of the weird rationing of spec to justify the price gap between badges.

*stares wistfully into the distance and remembers the smell of a vinyl roof on a hot summer day.

Even the “boggo” A4 se has 18” alloys

🤣

Pointless.

And.. here’s a thing, I’ve just been onto Audi’s website to find a pic of a boggo A4 basic model, no pics were there. What there was was some slider that allowed the user to “upgrade” without actually showing what the basic model looked like from the start of the process..

So I get the “aspiration” angle, but at least a pic of what the vehicle looks like from basic would be nice eh.. and not at all complicated.

https://s.aolcdn.com/commerce/autodata/images/USC70AUC017A021001.jp g" alt="" width="375" height="250" />

Pointless.

By Increasing the diameter of a wheel instead of width, higher footprints can be achieved with less resistance.

Take drugs for example.

This chap obviously did.

All depends if you want your car to look nice (to you).  What is wrong with it looking good?

I am not interested in or need a high power car but I want to drive one that I like the look of.

I also ride a bike that I like the look of.  I play a guitar that I like the look of.  I live in a house that I like the look of.  I have pets that I like the look of.

The two capri pics the RS alloys look great, the Janspeed exhaust must have been fitted wrong as they were the dogs bollox back then and great if your tailpipe internal was creamy white colour not sooty, I canny believe vauxhall would give anyone other than John Cleland a recaro seat but i may be wrong and finally what does the s stand for with your Audi? I bet these 2000 miles are £1 / mile at least

By Increasing the diameter of a wheel instead of width, higher footprints can be achieved with less resistance.

What is the advantage of a "higher" [larger] footprint? Friction is determined by the coefficient of friction of the material:

The force due to friction is generally independent of the contact area between the two surfaces. This means that even if you have two heavy objects of the same mass, where one is half as long and twice as high as the other one, they still experience the same frictional force when you drag them over the ground. This makes sense, because if the area of contact doubles, you may think that you should get twice as much friction. But when you double the length of an object, you halve the force on each square centimeter, because less weight is above it to push down.

https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-surface-area-affects-the-force-of-friction

the fastest 'crappy little fiat' (abarth 695 biposto) does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. Your S4 does it in 5.3. That's not worlds apart

Sadly Vandem Plas must have died in the '70 s, they made you feel regal with wood dash, a couple of badges and twin su carbs

and for for the record I have a 4.2 V8 S4

Suurrrffffmmaaa.......

L , GL, GLX GTS - I used to love some of the weird rationing of spec to justify the price gap between badges.

Me too - you knew where you stood with regard to your friends and neighbours and options lists were manageable. My dad used to have company cars and every couple of years we'd be up to our eyeballs in Vauxhall, Ford or VW brochures where every other page turn brought you a whole new wealth of plastic delight and otherwise blanked-out knobs, switches and dials! Happy days.

What is the advantage of a “higher” [larger] footprint?

Really?

Friction is determined by the coefficient of friction of the material:

You're missing the forest for the trees, but how about maintaining footprint for lower resistance, if it makes you happy.

There are reasons why cars don't run on inch wide tyres you know, despite your quoted physics. I could explain if you really needed me to but I do have a eulogy to write...

318d M-Sport anyone – suspension to keep a dentist happy and 140bhp!

That would be my car, an estate at that!

At first I was looking for a 325/330 but the market was thin on the ground and tidy 318d were better priced. The M-Sport kit just looks a bit nicer IMO. Suspension is firm but it does drive nicely, can't deal with wallowing cars on twisty roads. Nicer interior too.

Now then, which way do I vote?

the fastest ‘crappy little fiat’ (abarth 695 biposto) does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. Your S4 does it in 5.3. That’s not worlds apart

Yerrbutt..

Do you need to change your dentures after a drive in the Abarth?

Nice little car the Abarth, but it must be terribly uncomfortable..

I had some odd observations whilst doing my daily contribution to traffic which involves going very slowly past the entrance to RBS HQ in Edinburgh where lots of people who work for a bank seem to drive full on Camel Trophy spec LandRovers, is it the opposite end of the spectrum as driving a spine fusion spec Audi S5 or M4?

My brother has a stupid obsession with the souped up Audi's and I find them terribly uncomfortable. Proper sports cars like Porsche 911 as owned by my BiL in the past were actually quite comfortable to ride in and drive. FWIW- my Mazda3 is the quintessential "Fur coat no knickers" - it says SPORT on the back but has a 1.6 diesel under the bonnet, I bought solely on the basis of a Bose sound system and heated windscreen. My other vehicle is a LWB van, leaf spring suspension and no air con - I prefer it to anything else.

Friction is determined by the materials coefficient of friction, the coefficient of friction of the other surface the contact area of the material and the force applied between the two surfaces. So narrower tyres can generate more friction in some circumstances as the pressure increases between the surface. So on a low friction surface like a wet road, you would get more friction and therefore more grip with a narrower tyre.

i guess it depends on your definition of sporty. To me something like a Golf r is not sporty. It’s a big fat lumox of a thing, too fast, too much power. But a small zingy thing like an MX5 is sporty. Light, nimble, well balanced etc.

But a small zingy thing like an MX5 is sporty. Light, nimble, well balanced etc.

Nah mate, the MX5 is a hairdresser's car, this is a man's car.

I can see the appeal of sporty road cars. 🙂

Driving can be fun and certain cars are more fun to drive than others.

Doesn't have to be about power or size, I'd love an original Mini Cooper, MK1 Golf,  sporty  MK2 Escort,  Panda 100Hp, MX5 etc, not so much an Impreza, high spec BM or Aston.

Just personal taste but cars like that are still sporty, but more relevant to most people than something with huge power, grip and weight. Much more importantly, they're more fun.

For heavier/faster cars, I'd love a lottery win first gen NSX,  Jag XJ, Citroen CX, and something daft like a Caterham or  Morgan Roadster 4 seater....

It'll change in five minutes...🙂

but how about maintaining footprint for lower resistance

I'll take the lower resistance, but tell me why I need to maintain the footprint (when you've finished your eulogy, of course)?

I've got to admit, I prefer cars less styled. S1 Elise, curvy not some designer going crazy with his fold line pencil.

Sporty is relative, and back in the day the performance from my bottom of the line family hatchback would have been sporty. Bit things move on, faster cars considerably to the sensible side of supercars are now available.

That said, I think most people, even those of us who speed in NSLs with gay abandon, would accept that you can't use most of the power most of the time. The same often goes for the handling. And I'd accept the point that is made by a non-enthusiast that faster, better braked, grippier cars aren't safer unless driven appropriately, and they can even have more dangerous traits- even in these days of ESP where cars are practically unspinnable, a bigger gap between wet and dry levels of grip is going to make you go straight on if you're not careful.

My last car had double the power, it was great when I got to use it, but that was rare to the point that I can do journeys faster by getting further out of a tank often (and I usually don't even nead a "nearly full" tank to do most long journeys). And I think about 1-2% of journeys weren't frustratingly slow despite me not as a rule driving to work or about town. Last summer I did a 450 mile trip where a faster car wouldn't have been any faster than my current car - and I don't mean if I cared about my license, I mean absolutely at all there just wasn't any opportunity to use any level of performance beyond a bog standard car's.

For that reason, although an S4 Avant has crossed my mind, I'll be waiting until I have time/energy/funds to run another car and buying something small and lightweight for taking out at night or far enough from civilisation to get something out of it. MR2 or MX5 probably, maybe that Elise one day.

Friction is determined by the materials coefficient of friction, the coefficient of friction of the other surface the contact area of the material and the force applied between the two surfaces. So narrower tyres can generate more friction in some circumstances as the pressure increases between the surface. So on a low friction surface like a wet road, you would get more friction and therefore more grip with a narrower tyre.

Eh? Smaller footprint for the same weight means the same friction for a given co-efficient of friction (CoF). Obviously the wet road has a lower CoF but wet or dry the amount of friction is the same for a small or large contact patch. On a wet road there may be advantages to a narrower tyre in not aquaplaning and low profile tyres may have advantages in not distorting as much, but in terms of friction it's all the same. You can try an experiment with a fag packet on a slope (e.g. a pub menu. Fag packet on edge or flat it will start sliding at the same angle of slope).

I’ll take the lower resistance, but tell me why I need to maintain the footprint

You don't.

Go and fit the narrowest tyres possible to your car. Less resistance, you'll be laughing.

Beauty they say is in the eye of the beholder, but this is 🤮

I understand the need for aerodynamic capability, but at 70mph this is pointless

I’ll take the lower resistance, but tell me why I need to maintain the footprint (when you’ve finished your eulogy, of course)?

The footprint isn't consistent between tyre sizes. On the same car you would run a 255 section tyre at a lower pressure than a 195.  So the big tyre does have a considerably larger contact patch.

That then means the force that tyre has to transfer to the road per unit area is lower, which means it wears slower, at an extreme example if you put narrow tyres on a sports car (and drove it like one) it would melt the tyres.

Also wide tyres at low pressures are going to be more comfortable (on the same diameter rim and same outer diameter). It's just that usually they come spec'd on stiff suspension, big alloys and low profile tyres.

Yes a silly narrow tyre is more efficient in terms of aerodynamics, and works better in snow or standing water, but that doesn't make it better everywhere.

Also, despite what GCSE Physics tells you, friction is not independent of area in the real world, especially when it comes to big soft deformable things like tyres, the whole contact patch is constantly deforming and squirming so the pressure isn't equally applied across it, some of it is experiencing static friction others sliding, so a larger area offers a much more consistent grip whereas a smaller area will break away and then that's it.

The coefficient of friction only applies when the surfaces don't deform. High performance tyres can generate cornering forces exceeding 1g because the tread deforms to match the surface of the road. This is means a coefficient of friction exceeding 1.00, which is impossible

you can still have a car that's sporty to drive, although it is slower. Some small cars just feel fast. Bit like the classic mini.

High performance tyres can generate cornering forces exceeding 1g because the tread deforms to match the surface of the road. This is means a coefficient of friction exceeding 1.00, which is impossible

A commonly quoted falsehood, lot's of materials have a coefficient of friction substantially higher than 1.0 (including tyres on tarmac), although most cars will slide at ~1g in a corner.

I canny believe vauxhall would give anyone other than John Cleland a recaro seat but i may be wrong

My Cavalier SRi 130 had Recaros - they were just shonky OEM Recaros mind.

This thread is like being back in applied mechanics class in the '70s , friction and its Greek letter moo.

When are we getting moments?

its Greek letter moo

Used in calculating the cowefficient of friction?

If you've got a beef about it, take it outside.

Some people never loin....

you can still have a car that’s sporty to drive, although it is slower. Some small cars just feel fast. Bit like the classic mini.

Light, low to the road, direct unassisted steering, decent throttle response (no turbos please, we're British), it isn't difficult to build a sporty car.
I was in a Porsche the other day with a poxy two litres putting out barely over 100Bhp but it was still an absolute joy.

lot’s of materials have a coefficient of friction substantially higher than 1.0

Apart from rubber, how many can you list?

Friction is determined by the materials coefficient of friction, the coefficient of friction of the other surface the contact area of the material and the force applied between the two surfaces.

The coefficient of friction varies with pressure and hence contact area, plus aquaplaning, narrower tyres beyond a certain limit will increase drag through rolling resistance, narrower tyres are more likely to find "gaps" in the grip, but can dig through soft surfaces etc.

And that's before you consider tyre deformation during hard cornering, and, if you're really driving like a tit (probably only really applies on track) tyre temperature levels and responsiveness from lower profile tyres...

Add to that the fact that many, many people who chuck low profile tyres on their cars then can't afford the extrotionate cost of a decent set of tyres so put one or more Ditchfinders on, the point that fat tyres on huge rims is fashionable is pretty ridiculous, but that's not going to let me not correct your physics!

These 2 cars are almost identical in performance.  But which would you buy?

It does appear to be that the premium brands are best at up scaling.  Both BMW M Sport / Audi S Line with crappy under powered engines.

For the buyer it is all about what they look like, for the manufacturer its all about making more margin for adding more plastic.

My particular favourite is Audi's 'Black Edition' charging £1,000's more for everything to be black.

These 2 cars are almost identical in performance.  But which would you buy?

What are the prices and specification. I like the look of the blue one.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/6-key-differences-between-the-bmw-m2-and-m240i/

Apart from rubber, how many can you list?

Seeing as we're talking tyres, that one would seem like a pretty good one!

Also:

Cast iron

Copper

Aluminium

And those are just the ones I remember being >1 against themselves.

Ah, familiar.

So what about cars that don't look fast, but are? My car looks like a boring estate, but it's only a couple of seconds behind your 4.2l V8 S4 in the 0-60mph dash, with a 245bhp flat-6 and AWD.

To answer the original question, cars are a wealth/status statement these days. It's so easy to get a brand new £30k on PCP, even a 21 year old can do it - if you want people to know (think) you're successful and wealthy, you get a flash car with big wheels and many exhaust tips on PCP. The fact that it's actually a BMW 116d matters not, it's what it looks like that matters.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2015-BMW-116D-M-SPORT-PERFORMANCE-PACK-M140I-REP-SAT-NAV-ESTORIL-BLUE/253974443527?hash=item3b220e7607:g:mAAAAOSwcQpb2fOs:rk:11:pf:0

FULL M-SPORT PERFORMANCE PACK!!! M140i REPLICA!!!1!!!

114bhp. Woo. :/

My Cavalier SRi 130 had Recaros – they were just shonky OEM Recaros mind

Yes - the LX was basically an SRi without the 130 engine.  Comfortable seats they were....

<div class="bbp-reply-author">redmex
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">

The two capri pics the RS alloys look great, the Janspeed exhaust must have been fitted wrong as they were the dogs bollox back then and great if your tailpipe internal was creamy white colour not sooty, I canny believe vauxhall would give anyone other than John Cleland a recaro seat but i may be wrong and finally

<span class="bbp-reply-post-date">Posted 4 hours ago</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">what does the s stand for with your Audi? I bet these 2000 miles are £1 / mile at least</span></div>
<
You asked !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_S_and_RS_models

Our normal family car is a Toyota Avensis valveomatic treehugging estate !

mk1 jetta saloon, 1.5 engine, tyres like biscuits... every corner an adventure

few cars have provided as much fun in the form of sidewaysness, since

should probably have kept that, classic, etc.

It's nothing new, look how many big buff classic muscle cars made less power than a mondeo.

Pssst...is that Audi hating Bikebouy around ..?

Hodgy here ..and I drive an Audi and couldn't give two ducks what anyone thinks 😁

The reason I bought it was because of its capabilities ..living in a very remote part of the country we do tend to get quite severe winters so of primary importance was it's Quattro / Allroad capabilities ( it replaced an X-trail) ..I also like the way it looks , I like the fact it's an automatic , I like the fact that it's very fast and that we have roads in this part of the country which are relatively quiet so that you can have some fun with it ..if the mood takes you ( but most of the time we just pootle along ), I like the fact that you wouldn't be able to pigeon hole me as a typical Audi driver as inferred by bikebouy ..and you sure as f--cking hell wouldn't be able to tell which way I voted from the way I look..

But most of all I just like pissing off Audi haters😁

(  I drive an Insignia Sport Tourer to get to work  ..while the Mrs drives the Audi ..she is a mobile hairdresser 🤣)

These A4/6 S-line back breakers are image vacuums, you instantly know who the driver is, how they vote in elections and what thier moral backbone consists of.

Ok.  I’ll bite.  Audi A4 estate.  It’s an S-Line with 19” alloys.  So, your analysis of me says...?

BTW, I won’t take it personally!

So, your analysis of me says…?

You have bland tastes in cars. 🙂

😂 at Sbob..

I love it ..

Zakerly 👍

I own an Audi too BTW 🤠

Fortunately I don't own a car, so you can only slag off my taste in hardtails/haircuts/barmaids in riposte. 🙂

False accusations - for the German mfgr's look at .de -websites, there are very low spec models still available (16" wheels, non-metallic paint jobs) and also options such as increased ride height with comfort suspension. It is the importers who make daft spec choices, along with the buyers. Also, for UK the RHD thing probably reduces some options.

You have bland tastes in cars.

😂

Guilty!