GuzziGrowler
New Member
After an reasonably exhaustive search for stylish coupes the boss and I decided on the RCZ as her new motor and brought an 'eleven' (
) plated blue 156 a couple of weeks ago.
Motors under contemplation (within our GBP6k budget) were initially confined to hard top convertibles; and consequently narrowed down to the cool little Mazda MX5 (we own a '14 Mazda 6 which hasn't so much as blown a blub in six years of annual servicing ownership. Brilliant styish family car), Audi TT, Beemer Z3 or 4 & Merc SLK mkII (not the pig ugly mk.1) . However having test driven the MX-5 the boss considered the Mazda a bit too hardcore for her daily 40 mile round trip commute, despite the apparent advantages of five annual days of carefree roof down British motoring. I loved the direct nature of the MX-5, but the mk1 styling left me feeling like a canal boat pilot, and the mk.2 only a stomachable touch better: Latest shape = gorgeous, but out of scope financially. Merc mkIII we had as a holiday rental. Handling suspect. Engine wheezy.
Sadly MX-5 ruled out, we were left with Audi TT, VW Sicrocco, and...cars equaly bland visually. Dismissive? Yes. Justifiable? Yes'er! I come from a thirty year plus heavily motorcycle orientated background - no end of Japanese and when I grew up a couple of Italian marques. To my mind style & sound is/ should be the biggest driver(s). Style equates to passion. You can take your tectonic engineered' marketing hyped slogans and shove them right up your pretetious 'Vorsprung Durch Technik' tailpipe. Our Alfa Romeo 156 cost us as much as it's purchase price in repairs over two years of ownership, but on 18 inch mags she was gorgeous back in the day; and she handled, and she sounded like no in line four had any decent right to as standard. What price does anyone put of that? Looks, feel, sound? I know what Mastercasd would say.
So it became the RCZ. Reason? Because she's fuggin' gorgeous. Mk1, Mk2. I'm ambivalent. Was she modelled on the mk.1 Audi TT? Undoubtedly: industry follows trends, and the design classics reach an apogee, always been the way, regardless of what design object you're taking about: An Iznik tile or a Ducati Panigale. I walked past an Audi TT mk.II today. Similair lines to the RCZ, but totally lacking that design 'je ne sais quoi' or 'wow' factor that the RCZ has in spades thanks to that evocative roof and muscular rear flanks.
So to conclude a red wine and gin fueled waffle, a car's a fuggin car, by and large, to a life long bike junkie like me. There's only so much Stirling Moss you can do on moonscape British A/B roads - as me (Kiwi native) and my Ducati 900SS irritatingly know. So style has to become a premium. Yes the RCZ's is a bit crashy on Britian's winter ravished roads, yes, the engine is not one to tolerate fools mechanically, yes she wears 308 undergarmets. But f.... all that. The point is she has a motor that loves revs, she's pretty damn coddling inside and she's gorgeous. Extrapolate all that to the fairer sex and we're all in a supermodel relationship. What price lust?
Motors under contemplation (within our GBP6k budget) were initially confined to hard top convertibles; and consequently narrowed down to the cool little Mazda MX5 (we own a '14 Mazda 6 which hasn't so much as blown a blub in six years of annual servicing ownership. Brilliant styish family car), Audi TT, Beemer Z3 or 4 & Merc SLK mkII (not the pig ugly mk.1) . However having test driven the MX-5 the boss considered the Mazda a bit too hardcore for her daily 40 mile round trip commute, despite the apparent advantages of five annual days of carefree roof down British motoring. I loved the direct nature of the MX-5, but the mk1 styling left me feeling like a canal boat pilot, and the mk.2 only a stomachable touch better: Latest shape = gorgeous, but out of scope financially. Merc mkIII we had as a holiday rental. Handling suspect. Engine wheezy.
Sadly MX-5 ruled out, we were left with Audi TT, VW Sicrocco, and...cars equaly bland visually. Dismissive? Yes. Justifiable? Yes'er! I come from a thirty year plus heavily motorcycle orientated background - no end of Japanese and when I grew up a couple of Italian marques. To my mind style & sound is/ should be the biggest driver(s). Style equates to passion. You can take your tectonic engineered' marketing hyped slogans and shove them right up your pretetious 'Vorsprung Durch Technik' tailpipe. Our Alfa Romeo 156 cost us as much as it's purchase price in repairs over two years of ownership, but on 18 inch mags she was gorgeous back in the day; and she handled, and she sounded like no in line four had any decent right to as standard. What price does anyone put of that? Looks, feel, sound? I know what Mastercasd would say.
So it became the RCZ. Reason? Because she's fuggin' gorgeous. Mk1, Mk2. I'm ambivalent. Was she modelled on the mk.1 Audi TT? Undoubtedly: industry follows trends, and the design classics reach an apogee, always been the way, regardless of what design object you're taking about: An Iznik tile or a Ducati Panigale. I walked past an Audi TT mk.II today. Similair lines to the RCZ, but totally lacking that design 'je ne sais quoi' or 'wow' factor that the RCZ has in spades thanks to that evocative roof and muscular rear flanks.
So to conclude a red wine and gin fueled waffle, a car's a fuggin car, by and large, to a life long bike junkie like me. There's only so much Stirling Moss you can do on moonscape British A/B roads - as me (Kiwi native) and my Ducati 900SS irritatingly know. So style has to become a premium. Yes the RCZ's is a bit crashy on Britian's winter ravished roads, yes, the engine is not one to tolerate fools mechanically, yes she wears 308 undergarmets. But f.... all that. The point is she has a motor that loves revs, she's pretty damn coddling inside and she's gorgeous. Extrapolate all that to the fairer sex and we're all in a supermodel relationship. What price lust?
The looks of these cars just had me too.
