I wish there was a "none of the above" option. None of them do a particularly good job of differentiating, not even Porsche. Obviously an enthusiast can tell a Carrera and GT2 apart, but even someone like us probably can't figure that out with just a half-second glance at the car. From a distance you actually need to pick out the details. This is even more of a problem with BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc. because they offer things like ///M and AMG wheels and accessories (which are pretty popular from what I've seen) for their lower models which make it even more difficult to tell the difference.

 

Yea I was going to say for some of the newer model cars, you can get the exact same parts through the line. I know with the Audi A4, you can get all the S4 parts as options and they even have a option called S-line which makes the car even closer to an S4.

 

I voted for the Mercedes. Looks and power are TOTALLY different.

 

911 wins this one hands down:

Carrera S (hard time getting base model pics) and GT2 RS:

 

911 wins this one hands down:

Carrera S (hard time getting base model pics) and GT2 RS:

An RS car isn't really fair in my opinion, they have far more to differentiate them than their "normal" (i.e. regular GT2) counterparts and they're way more rare. For example, the GT2 and GT3 RS have those outrageous graphics on them. Other than the graphics, though, what is there to set them apart at a distance to the average person? From across a parking lot, the only real thing your average person is going to spot is that big wing.

 

If you're talking "flagship model," then it would be an RS model, but even the 911 turbo gets a wing, wider fenders and vents that really set the car apart. Well, in comparison to the rest of these, at least.

 

Don't forget, we're comparing the 911 and base model (C-class, 3 series, IS, etc.) cars for some odd reason?

Wouldn't a more fair comparison be the Boxster/Boxster S from Porsche?

 

if the p cars in question are base 911 vs gt2 rs then porsche wins, if its between base and 911 turbo like the poll says, then mercedes gets the win in my book.

but like adrocktt said, the 911 is a bit different than the rest of the cars listed

 

I'm not so sure of that (definitely closer):

 

I'm not so sure of that (definitely closer):

When you use these examples, Mercedes wins this fail contest hands-down

 

All of the sedans in question with wider fenders look like sedans with some flares added on. The Turbo completely changes the curve on the 911, not to mention the giant vent in the side.

 

corvettes are pretty bad about it too

a 40k base model vette looks the same as a z06 or 100k zr1.


and yes mercedes are the worst ever since they started offering exact replica AMG bumpers back in the mid-2000s. The M3 has wider fenders and a different bumper not offered to normal 3 series. But yeah, with all these cars you need to get within 50 feet to identify the model even if you are a car guy.

edit: read the poll wrong. i voted for the worst instead of best

 

This isnt the most intellectual thread I have ever participated in. I think the argument is silly, but I think the 911 example would win this. Whats wrong with comparing the 335i and the M3? How is that not a fair comparison?



One is a widebody with huge wheels and one isn't. Stevie Wonder can see the difference between the two.

 

in the c63's defense, you picked the crappiest c63 pic ever, white hides lines very well and the quality of that pic is ass. lets look at these 2

my opinion could also be a little swayed by the fact that I have a savage hardon for c63's

 

in the c63's defense, you picked the crappiest c63 pic ever, white hides lines very well and the quality of that pic is ass. lets look at these 2


my opinion could also be a little swayed by the fact that I have a savage hardon for c63's

You notice a trend with my pics above? I picked cars of the same color to make the comparison more even........

 

I voted for Benz also. The C250 is an absolute slug. The Lexus comparison was a close second.

 

^I think the thread is about appearance only, for non car enthusiasts to be able to tell its not your run of the mill ______

 

Ya know, the whole point of a car in a "range" is that it IS similar and not completely different, as to throw someone off, or have the average person not be able to connect them as being similar cars from the same maker.

 

True, but different manufacturers take it to different levels. The Camaro, for example, gives you almost NOTHING to make your V8 model stand out. The Mustang isn't as bad, but since adding dual exhaust to the V6, it's still not offering much to the pony purchases. I think cars like the Corvette and 911 do the best job of making their upper tier models more aggressive, and enough to stand out to non-enthusiasts, without compromising the lineage. The German luxury performance models mentioned add subtle touches that make the cars look nicer, but not necessarily in a stand-out, aggressive way that some would want when paying tens of thousands more. As if it's just a trim package, not a performance model.

On the other end, cars like the EVO (which doesn't try to associate itself as a Lancer) try to obtain cheap speed by taking whatever crappy model they start with and modifying it to look completely different, and it really does.

Just my opinion...

 

Mercedes has got to be the absolute worst offender when it comes to not being able to differentiate the base model from the highest end version. Aside from massive brakes and nice exhaust, some of the AMG models look identical to the base.
I remember how popular it was to swap out 320 badges to AMG 55 badges on CLK's and E classes a while back..... only a real enthusiast would notice it wasn't the real thing.

I think Chevy does a great job with the Corvette. The base C6 looks quite tame compared to the ZR1.

 

Can I add one?

Jaguar XF

Jaguar XFR

No big difference once again.

 

Can I add one?

Jaguar XFR

No big difference once again.

One thing is for sure, those XFR's are gorgeous cars:agreed:

 

To the Supra owners, what was the biggest difference between a base non-turbo Supra and a Turbo Supra? I was just wondering if there was anything visually different to recognize the two.

 

^brakes, and the side intercooler if you have a sharp eye

 

And the wheels, 17's on the Turbo, 16's on the non turbo.

 

Clearly the winner

 

lol @ Cobalt...

Good one indeed! Did you miss the fact that he posted a picture of a Chevrolet Cobalt and a Pontiac G5? LOL!

 

evo / sti wins. the base models look like crap but they do a good job making the evo/sti super aggressive. the new charger srt8 is unmistakable from the front as well

some companies also offer special colors on their flagships... i know m3's used to offer some loud colors only on M's like laguna seca blue or dakar yellow,

 

lol @ Cobalt...

I would agree tha the Evo/STI base/flagship comparison is probably the most recognizable.

 

Good point about the EVO especially. The standard Lancer and EVO look like two different manufacturers almost.

 

lambo does a good job too. lol i was a big fan of the gallardo and murci when they came out.... but the SV and LP570 look 100x better than the originals. Same with pagani, the original zonda looks like shit compared to the F, cinque, and 760

 

AMG ftw

 

Personally I think there's a bigger difference between the evo and lancer. At lease the base impreza looks somewhat decent (and wrx look Exaclty like the sti these days save for the brakes) especially the brand new ones. The lancer just looks like the most basic econobox

 

I hope weedwhacker won't mind me adding pictures to the thread to help visualize

C6

ZR1

 

CTS

CTS-V