pinchvalve wrote: IMHO, simple, purposeful and beautiful are very different than elegant. To me, elegant is gorgeous, expressive, sumptuous, and opulent. Over-the-top and slightly impractical, never hurried. Something like a 1939 Bugatti Type 57C Voll & Ruhrbeck Cabriolet:
This question has been stuck in my head all day, and I can't seem to find the perfect fit. ^ This post probably comes closest in my mind.
As far as what I've owned, that would be my own 3rd gen Prelude:
If you mean "seen in person" then I can put up these two:
1933 Lincoln
1934 Packard coupe roadster.
I have worked on both of these cars, the Lincoln is finished now and we've begun restoration on the Packard.
Run_Away wrote: As far as what I've owned, that would be my own 3rd gen Prelude:
Win!
I really haven't yet been able to tear myself away from the thought that this car is just pure understated elegance on wheels.
The new Astons... While I love the whole "aggressive with class" look, the beltlines are too high for them to really look graceful. At least to me.
Run_Away wrote: This question has been stuck in my head all day, and I can't seem to find the perfect fit. ^ This post probably comes closest in my mind. As far as what I've owned, that would be my own 3rd gen Prelude:
Let me just say, I would like to own that car.
Excellent example of FWD sporty car.
Barring an obscure foray into the very old or extremely rare, for me the Jaguar E-type has always epitomized "elegance".
Needless to say, the current obsession with slab sides and hard creases grates on my visual sense. Let's face it, UGLY is in style.
Capt Slow wrote: Also the OP asked what is the most elegant car you have actually owned.
No, he asked "what is the most elegant car you've ever seen?"
3Door4G wrote: What, in your opinion, is the most elegant car you've ever seen?
In reply to hotg54b:
You are correct sir!
4 posts down from my original post you can see me acknowledge my reading failure...
Capt Slow wrote: In reply to hotg54b: You are correct sir! 4 posts down from my original post you can see me acknowledge my reading failure...
In my defense It was the only way I could mentally associate "Honda" with "Elegant" given the O.P.'s picture...
Capt Slow wrote:Capt Slow wrote: In reply to hotg54b: You are correct sir! 4 posts down from my original post you can see me acknowledge my reading failure...In my defense It was the only way I could mentally associate "Honda" with "Elegant" given the O.P.'s picture...
I agree.
Though its an "elegant" wedge per se.
De Tomaso Pantera (again). The GT5 is the aggressive one (see other thread), the "base" model is the elegant one:
.jpg)
Holden Efijy concept = Sex on wheels. GM: Make a Buick version and don't water it down like Chrysler did with the Prowler. Do it NAO!!1!!
3Door4G wrote: What, in your opinion, is the most elegant car you've ever seen?
Have you guys actually seen all these cars? 
Capt Slow wrote:Capt Slow wrote: In reply to hotg54b: You are correct sir! 4 posts down from my original post you can see me acknowledge my reading failure...In my defense It was the only way I could mentally associate "Honda" with "Elegant" given the O.P.'s picture...
I'll admit to an unnatural love of wedge-shaped cars. The C4 Corvette is another one of my all-time favorites.
Mercedes 280se
I can't believe it hasn't been posted yet.
3Door4G wrote: I'll admit to an unnatural love of wedge-shaped cars. The C4 Corvette is another one of my all-time favorites.
Me too...the later C4s are really, really nice. I like 'em stock, with sawblades and just nice n' clean.
My 93 is white. It gets dirty very easily, but cleans up real well!
And for all the flak people give Vettes about the interior, I really, REALLY love my C4s interior! The mega deep buckets, swoopy (although plastic) dash, the WIDE door sills that make it a pain to get in and out of...I love it!
I think the Aston Vantage V8 falls into the wedge category, no?
I don't think they have made a bad looking car yet.
Something about this does it for me.
This is the best looking all time though.
This is one of the cars that does it for me.
This is another one. Always liked the almost forgotten taillights.
Also, why is it that it seems when talking about "elegant" cars we automatically think of cars from the 30's through very early 60's and not much modern stuff.
wlkelley3 wrote: Also, why is it that it seems when talking about "elegant" cars we automatically think of cars from the 30's through very early 60's and not much modern stuff.
Because that's the time when automakers cared about their product and their image. They made automobiles.
Now, they're run by bean counters that make appliances for the masses.
Tha Packard I posted above has amazing attention-to-detail. The simplest things on the car are done in the most detailed yet functional manner. This isn't done on modern cars.
The exhaust manifold on that car is coated with porcelain, it keeps the heat down but also puts a gorgeous, gloss black, glass smooth finish on the part. I'm sure paint would function just nicely and last longer but that's not what the car is about.
The round cans on the ends of the bumpers have a big weight inside them that is suspended by springs and runs in an oil bath. It dampens out road vibrations for a smoother ride.
The lever shocks are adjustable on the fly, from the driver's compartment. They have four settings from firm to soft.
The car has an automatic lubrication system. When the engine is shut down it sends one squirt of oil to every shackle bushing, brake bellcrank and even the throwout bearing. I'm sure it would have been simpler to have "your man" lube the car as part of his daily duties but this is a fine automobile.
The Packard even had an optional radio and optional dictagraph available in 1934!
Like the slogan says "ask the man who owns one" The Lincoln is more stylish than the Packard but the subtlety and attention to detail that comes with the Packard is downright amazing.
To give you an idea, a 1934 Ford was roughly $600.00 new. That Packard was $2700.00 new. That's with the Packard body, the Deitrich and LeBaron bodied cars cost even more.
Deusenbergs of the same era could get into the tens of thousands.
So, call a Honda elegant if you want. I feel the appropriate term for the Honda should be "purposeful".
Shawn
To me though, purpose is an expression of elegance.
So while I understand your point of view, I still think that Honda is elegant.
it might just be me, but there is something seriously knee-weakeningly gorgeous about the old Jaguar XKSS. like an E-Type, but with a nicer ass and a MUCH MUCH prettier face:
and what could be arguably the XKSS's racing version, the D-Type:
and a rather obscure kit car, a Falcon Mk. II Competition Lightweight from the '50s. something very purposeful about it, it seems to not have any excess, there's a certain raw elegance to it:
also, how is the new Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione not here yet?
that is all... for now
You'll need to log in to post.
