Scotster wrote:Can i ask what you guys see as the problem with this car? What do you think is wrong with it other than going in the huff and being all pi$$y coz someone has took a tubby and done something different.
I think it looks pretty well built and the end result looks pretty high quality.
Personally, I'd just file it away as
"whatever floats your boat" in the same drawer as some of the other rather OTT MR2 body kits.To analyse it a bit further though, I simply don't like
*any* bolt-on stuff. I don't see the point in adding any parts which add weight and offer nothing in return. If it improved the aerodynamics and improved roadholding or downforce then I could see the point but I just can't see the point in adding body kits when they give nothing in return.That
*is* just me though and I know some people want to build a unique car. All power to them. Personally, I'd have more interest in a car which has been tidily lightened and has lots of good quality engineering work rather than one with 50kg of fibreglass glued to it.
The other thing that gives me the heeby jeebies about this one is that it's making the front end look big enough to fit a V8 when, in fact, all that lives under there is a spare tyre.
That kind of thing bugs me, again, cos it's pointless.
It's like those X-Pack and wide-arch kits you used to be able to get
(probably still can) for Escorts and Pug 205s that had Testarossa-style ducts in the rear arches. Hello!?The Testarossa was mid-engined and had radiators for the engine behind those ducts.
What's the duct for in a front-engined, front-wheel drive vehicle? Cooling those high-performance brake drums at the back?Like I said, I'm not trying to say it's wrong or trying to tell people to stop doing it.
I am just explaining why I'm not a fan. 
to the lot of you.
