what is "dated?"

and where did that stat come from ?
(methinks you just made it up, but if its genuine id like to know where it came from)


i suspect its dead wrong btw, an awful lot of people (especially kids) know every nuance of modern fcars

 

It came from the official Husker Poll, which was scientifically taken over a 3 year period spanning three different Ferrari models and two different colors thereof. So you can trust it.

 

I dont know about 99% but I would definately agree the majority of the public cant tell a new Ferrari from an old one.

When I first bought my F355 and it had the new registration sticker in the window everyone I ran into thought it was brand new...even though it was 6 years old.

 

I think dated is in the eyes of the beholder. In my opinion, any post GTC4 and pre-512TR Ferraris except for F40 are dated. No offense to any 3X8 owners out there, I wouldn't want to be caught dead in any one of those.

They are all caught in the middle of used car syndrome, not yet classic, and definitely not contemporary. For some reasons, the 512TR and F355(I own a Berlinetta, so a bias here), flip headlights notwithstanding still look fresh to me.

But again, this is only my opinion.

 

Actually, I think the early Mondials with the Rubber bumpers have aged better than the color matched later models (3.2 on?).

I also think the 550/575 was an instant classic.

-dsd

 

This can be arranged ...

 

How is the TR dated and the 512TR not? The wheels?

Is the 288 GTO dated?

And what's the difference between a 308 and 355 (in common design terms?) Two wedges, flat louvered deck, buttresses, black targa tops, low linear nose, pop-up lights... you won't find anything I just listed on a 2007 car.

The air intakes are lower on the 355, and the front grille is fake, but otherwise it's basically a shorter, taller 308 that got chunky in the middle. (And yes, I think both cars look good - just not sure how one is dated and the other isn't. I guess the 308 toggle switches are old, and the 355 plastic switches are more '90s.)

It's in the eye of the beholder, but you should explain why you think your car isn't 'dated' compared to the modern V8 Ferraris (360/F430 -- which I'm not as keen on aesthetically.)

Lol.

 

There is dated in perfomance meaning average new cars, trucks or mini vans today can out perform them then dated but still a fast car, for instance a Daytona or BB can hit 175mph which very few stock cars today can attain, then there is also timeless styling, while my BB may be dated it still draws more attention and thumbs up than my 355 or 360s I have driven.

 

OK - so what was the margin of error? I would presume less than 1%!

Am I getting the impression here that we are basically using the term "dated" for things that were so ugly or in such bad taste that they serve as a negative icon of their times? For cars, kind of an automative platform shoes, parachute pants, or leisure suit?

If so, I think the mfgrs have made some junk this very year that is already "dated" - I nominate the Scion and the Element mini-mini-box-vans as a starting point. And probably the Prius greencar.

And I know this one could get a person killed, but I think the 4-door RX8 is a contender as well.

 

I sort of disagree. I think the RX8 was a bit of a muddle when it was launched -- sort of a practical sporty kind of everyday driver -- i.e., who knows what the hell it is. It's not that it has 'dated' design cues like fake woodgrain stickers down the side, but no cohesive direction to its design. Big difference, IMO.

I'm underwhelmed by the Bangle BMW designs -- not sure they can be 'dated' when they are in production, but as soon as the new Z4 comes out the current one will be a laughing stock.

 

yes i wouldn't call the RX-8 dated. it's mini rear door is not evocative any particular decadal trend or convention used across many manufacturers design ethos. it's just different as nobody else i know uses such design cues. instead it's sort of bizarre and awkward, but not dated.

the car in general is weird looking and attests to the spotty interest that has been declining. maybe time will be kind to the RX-8, pointing out how innovative it was for it's time even if it currently borders on ugly.

 

Wow, Bonzelite! I guess you are not exactly in the RX-8 market just now!

I was, I admit, a really big fan of each of the previous RX generations for style, but this one is just too much for me. Even the old Cosmo, which many ridiculed, does not cause me physical pain to look at like this - but, to each his own as they say.

Just for what it is worth, I have a 1999 Miata, but I have not warmed up to the fender flares on the new version - which may kind of take a cue from the RX8 pontoons up front.

Also, didn't Saturn take a shot at the mini-rear-door recently? I say they belong only on pickup trucks, if even that.

 

hahaha, yes, James, i'm not in he market for an RX-8. i'd take a mint RX-3, though. nice car that one is.

this is a good point, though: as some cars are evocative of a certain era, rising to iconic status exactly because of this, some design cues are not of any particular era, per se.

some cues are just off-the-wall and experimental. however, you have to hand it to Mazda for being the eternal but highly successful blacksheep with it's rotary engines and questionable designs.

however, to it's counterpoint, the Miata is the most --THE most-- successful sports car sold in all of automotive history if my memory serves me correctly. so Mazda has done it, having more than made up for it's blacksheep RX-8 experiment. way made up for it. +1 for the Japanese again
(and that is not meant as a slight or jab at Ferrari, folks, so please don't start in with that).