Nice legs, shame about the face

E39MSport

Following on from the comments in the bangernomics thread. Some perfectly good, even great looing cars are badly let down aesthetically by a single 'design' feature.

Case in point is the 8th gen Galant. That's just wrong.

It even looks terrible on wiki.
I think they look great for what they are but the wheels are lost in those arches. Such a pity. Takes away from the whole look of the car.

Any others? The S40 is the same at the front with regard to wheel arches.

Anan1

I don't get the whole wheel/wheelarch fetish myself - I see them for maybe ten seconds a day while walking towards my car. Power, handling and economy I can understand, but this stuff is one step up from worrying about how the soles of my shoes look. Plus, for me no room in the wheelarch implies limited suspension travel, which in turn says slow over bumpy roads.:)

giant_midget

Nice legs, shame about the face you say....Viv from Emerdale comes to mind :pac:

Matt Simis

Anan1 wrote: »

I don't get the whole wheel/wheelarch fetish myself - I see them for maybe ten seconds a day while walking towards my car. Power, handling and economy I can understand, but this stuff is one step up from worrying about how the soles of my shoes look. Plus, for me no room in the wheelarch implies limited suspension travel, which in turn says slow over bumpy roads.:)

That car is odd looking though. I dont go the super low route either, I like stock OEM sports low or maybe a fraction lower. I also like to see tyre.. old American muscle cars showed off the tyre with text and colouring, I like that.

I dont like wheels so low they are in the arches low either (arch and wheel curve are difference so it looks terrible):
[URL="[URL=http://img573.imageshack.us/i/foto0160k.jpg/][IMG]http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/2425/foto0160k.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][/url]
[URL="[URL=http://img257.imageshack.us/i/bimmaair.jpg/][IMG]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9910/bimmaair.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][/url]


They just look like cars with broken suspension (as does too high).

Anan1

Matt Simis wrote: »

That car is odd looking though.

In fairness, it is. If it weren't for the kerb i'd be wondering was it missing an engine.

unkel

Anan1 wrote: »

no room in the wheelarch implies limited suspension travel, which in turn says slow over bumpy roads.:)

Too right. I didn't know what the hell the noise was when I was driving in a spirited way with a fully loaded car over decent enough but narrow, bendy and bumpy R-roads in the midlands this summer until I realised it was the tyres scraping the arches :eek:

The cause of course were the 18" M5 wheels fitted onto my boggo 520 which is lowered and on sporty stiff Eibach suspension. My daily trouble includes negotiating the speedramps in my cul-de-sac. If I drive over them at more than about 10km/h, the underside of the car hits the ramp just after the front wheels come down off the ramp

Bring back the standard 15" wheels any time...

Zubeneschamali

unkel wrote: »

Bring back the standard 15" wheels any time...

It's the fecked-up lowered suspension that's your problem, not bigger wheels.

The wheels with tyres on should be the same size regardless, bigger wheels just means lower profile tyres, otherwise the speedo will be off.

NewApproach

The one thing I don't like about my Alfa 147 is the high ride height.

This isn't mine but an example of what I mean

E39MSport

NewApproach wrote: »

The one thing I don't like about my Alfa 147 is the high ride height.

This isn't mine but an example of what I mean

I wouldn't be able to sit in that! It's the motoring equivalent of a huge gap between front teeth.

On the other hand, that 5 looks ridiculous.

E39MSport

Anan1 wrote: »

I don't get the whole wheel/wheelarch fetish myself - I see them for maybe ten seconds a day while walking towards my car. Power, handling and economy I can understand, but this stuff is one step up from worrying about how the soles of my shoes look. Plus, for me no room in the wheelarch implies limited suspension travel, which in turn says slow over bumpy roads.:)

I just checked the soles of my shoes when you said that

af_thefragile

Similar with the Puma. It sits wayy too high. Could easily do with a 30mm drop atleast.

(not my car, but same color)


Its similar with the Maser GT. The rear wheels look somewhat lost in the wheel arches. It could do with slightly larger wheels...

unkel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's the fecked-up lowered suspension that's your problem, not bigger wheels.

The lowered suspension is causing the tyres to hit the arches, granted. Only happened to me once though so not really a problem. My general point is that apart from looks, big wheels with low profile tyres are pointless, in fact way worse than smaller tyres for ride / handling / comfort

I've never got the trend of ever increasing wheels sizes. Most 1.4 Golfs seem to be on 18" wheels these days, WTF? It's amazing they actually are able to beat inertia from stand still

In the 80s Ferraris had 16" wheels. My '86 Porsche 928 has 16" wheels. A modern saloon does not need more than 15"...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The wheels with tyres on should be the same size regardless, bigger wheels just means lower profile tyres, otherwise the speedo will be off.

They are the same size, the 18" M-parrallel wheels are BMW approved for any E39 (and standard on the BMW M5)

Zubeneschamali

unkel wrote: »

My general point is that apart from looks, big wheels with low profile tyres are pointless, in fact way worse than smaller tyres for ride / handling / comfort

Also blowouts. Only car I've ever blown a tyre on a pothole was on 50 profile rubber. 55 or 60 makes more sense on our Lunar landscape roads.

bladespin

Subary roundy lights, yuk, what on earth were they thinking, Corolla

Eoin

bladespin wrote: »

Subary roundy lights, yuk, what on earth were they thinking, Corolla

Personally I sort of used to like Subarus because they were so butt ugly. I prefer the older ones to their blander offerings these days.

Unkel wrote:

My general point is that apart from looks, big wheels with low profile tyres are pointless, in fact way worse than smaller tyres for ride / handling / comfort

I always regretted putting 18" low profiles on my 3 series. Very crashy ride, and I got a lot more punctures than I did in my 5 series with a bigger profile. A few people seem to say punctures and low profiles aren't related, but that was my experience anyway. It did look awful with 16" wheels though.

I've a big of a gap in my Alfa's wheel arch, but leaving it as it is.

Manic Moran

I don't see what grounds you guys have to complain about the aesthetic problems of 18" wheels.

I'm guessing that Ireland is rather short on Donks.













My personal favourite is an early 90s Lexus SC I've seen around here which is painted two-tone purple and yellow, running on at least 22" chrome wheels. Mere words cannot express the garishness of this thing, which occasionally runs up I-880 in the morning commute.

NTM

E39MSport

^ They are all disgusting !

Manic Moran

As for design flaws from the factory...







No better from behind.





NTM

E39MSport

Stop, it's almost dinner time

I Was VB

Poifect!!

inforfun

Matt Simis wrote: »

[URL="[URL=http://img257.imageshack.us/i/bimmaair.jpg/][IMG]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9910/bimmaair.jpg[/IMG][/URL]"][/url]


They just look like cars with broken suspension (as does too high).

Makes me want to take out the Monty Pyton dvd box

VolvoMan

I'm not one who obsesses over ride height, but I noticed since the new S60 was first revealed that it looks rather like it's on stilts:



It's a shame, because it arguably is one of the best looking cars in its class.

Berty

Saw one of these in Scotland on Friday. BLARGH!!!


Riding too high on the back

TomMc

Matt Simis wrote: »

That car is odd looking though. I dont go the super low route either, I like stock OEM sports low or maybe a fraction lower. I also like to see tyre.. old American muscle cars showed off the tyre with text and colouring, I like that.

I dont like wheels so low they are in the arches low either (arch and wheel curve are difference so it looks terrible):
[URL="[URL=http://img573.imageshack.us/i/foto0160k.jpg/][]http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/2425/foto0160k.jpg[/][/URL]"][/url][]http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/2425/foto0160k.jpg[/]
[URL="[URL=http://img257.imageshack.us/i/bimmaair.jpg/][]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9910/bimmaair.jpg[/][/URL]"][/url][]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9910/bimmaair.jpg[/]


They just look like cars with broken suspension (as does too high).

This is the way to do it!

L-M

:P

TomMc

All I want for Christmas is ...







http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tatra-613-5-215-Miles-Only-Ex-Prague-Motor-Show-Car-/220697513281?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item336298cd41

VinnyTGM

Limerick man wrote: »

:P

Very nice.

Stealthirl

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't see what grounds you guys have to complain about the aesthetic problems of 18" wheels.

I'm guessing that Ireland is rather short on Donks.

yes thank god !

Manic Moran wrote: »

My personal favourite is an early 90s Lexus SC I've seen around here which is painted two-tone purple and yellow, running on at least 22" chrome wheels. Mere words cannot express the garishness of this thing, which occasionally runs up I-880 in the morning commute.

NTM

My Soarer [same as a SC]


it dose need slightly wider wheels at the rear and a tad more of a drop IMO


my old evo realy needed wider alloys


and my civic was to low [even after i raised it up in this pic]

af_thefragile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmJ8AMxaI9E

skip to 2:24

MrMarsh

There's one of those Tatras in dublin. Somebody on Burlington Road owns it for years. You can see it on Google Street view, parked on the road.