Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
None of the federalized Lamborghinis was ever worth buying. Some of them were hideous in appearance and they didn't run much better.
Call me a heathen, but I also can't stand the looks of the Diablo. I blame some committee at Chrysler for that.
Ferrari always did a better job of integrating the stupid federal bumpers, at least starting with the 328.
That said, I never liked the impact bumpers on a 911 or 930 and I owned a bunch of those...
As for the looks of a TR, they look quite different when viewed amongst other, regular cars, from a distance. What some perceive as "huge" turns out to be pretty small in reality.
And, if you're not worth 50 million, it's probably the only choice you'll have for putting a decent V12 behind you.
|
I always liked the Diablo. Maybe because that is when they started engineering them to be a drivers car again. Both my kids hate the Diablo. The only car older than the Murcielago they like is the Miura. Daughter like the Murcielago but the boy doesn't like anything before the Aventator/Gallardo cousins.
I agree on the Testarossa looking big in pics but when you see one in the flesh they are little. I would put it 4th in beauty for Ferrari. The 1957 TR and then the 365 GTS (NOT the GTB) then the 288 GTO. Maybe not always in that order. The F40 looks "purposeful" but it isn't the art the others are.