Do "pretty" cars cost more to make than "ugly" cars?

[ratsbew]

"[Why do other car companies just make horrible cars?] I don't know, it just blows my mind. You can take a body panel and stamp it with this shape or that shape and yet they choose to do the bad shape.. but it costs the same either way. There are some things that cost a little more in terms of the quality of materials and getting things to fit accurately.. so there are few things that cost more but a lot of it doesn't. You know, you can make an ugly expensive car, you can make a good looking expensive car.. and the same goes for affordable good looking cars or an ugly affordable car. I think the cost differences are really relatively small. I don't know. I think maybe large car companies are just trapped in their own history."


-Elon Musk

Thanks. Assuming this is a real quote I think it pretty much wraps up this thread.

 

[Model 3]

Pretty sure Model 3 means 17" rims won't fit over the brake rotors (so I've heard)

Correct. Ore to be more precise: not sure if it is the brake rotors or some other things. IF I remember correct, the 18" may just fit over the break rotors if the rims have the exact correct design (therefore "in theory"), but conflict with some other "stuff", but I may have a poor memory, and I have not tried this myself, so this is not first-hand knowledge...

 

[gregincal]

I'd assume that there must be a reason why cars used to be very square.

Did they?

 

[Candleflame]

FISKER arguably made one of the best looking sedan cars of all time and that didn't turn out well. Form over function.

really? there is a reason they always show the Karma from behind.
Part of the reason they had so many engineering challenges with the car was because it was meant to look like Fiskers orginal design....

 

[scaesare]

Thanks. Assuming this is a real quote I think it pretty much wraps up this thread.

Yup.. HERE.

 

[Cebe]

Did they?

View attachment 112528

True, but no compound surfaces here at all. It's either flat, or curved in one direction, or spherical. Other than the small radius fillets, as a rule, nothing "modern" is this rounded (or flat.) Compare this to Model S' C-pillar blending into the trunk, for instance...

Somebody brought up "math" earlier in the thread. Large surfaces will be degree 5 or higher, these days. With the cubics (think spherical, see above), the curvature (second derivative) is constant. That's bad, the shape doesn't look dynamic enough. Since even degree curves don't play nicely, the degree five is as low as you'd go.

 

[BOOMER7]

FISKER arguably made one of the best looking sedan cars of all time and that didn't turn out well. Form over function.

^^^ agree they are absolutely gorgeous in the looks department.

 

[ratsbew]

^^^ agree they are absolutely gorgeous in the looks department.

I'd "argue" that the Karma is s hideous car. Yeah, it draws attention, but I wouldn't be caught dead in one.

 

[wdolson]

FISKER arguably made one of the best looking sedan cars of all time and that didn't turn out well. Form over function.

The long, low shape is pleasing to the eye, but they made it so low that it's impractical. They also screwed up the engineering which was terrible.

 

[BOOMER7]

I'd "argue" that the Karma is s hideous car. Yeah, it draws attention, but I wouldn't be caught dead in one.

To each there own. Some people probably feel the same about the MS looks. I happen to find both cars gorgeous to look at.