Looks good. I like it.
It is fine, I'd drive it.
It looks a bit dated.
Ugly... just ugly.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2013 Mirage 1.0 manual: 47.5 mpg (US) ... 20.2 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 57.0 mpg (Imp)
I totally agree. I could care less what my car looks like. I bought the Mirage for the high MPG, practical room on the inside and low cost.
I've always wondered how much "styling" adds to the cost and takes away from the practicality of a car. For example if you told the best car engineer to design a car with high mpg, interior space, and low cost, but with zero regard for style, what would it look like?
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage 1.2 automatic: 39.7 mpg (US) ... 16.9 km/L ... 5.9 L/100 km ... 47.6 mpg (Imp)
It would look a lot like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
Using diesel alone the car is capable of up to 2.0 l/100 km (120 mpg-US; 140 mpg-imp).
Custom Mirage products: Cruise control kit, Glove box light, MAF sensor housing, Rear sway bar, Upper grill block
Current project: DIY Nitrous oxide setup for ~$100
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 47.2 mpg (US) ... 20.1 km/L ... 5.0 L/100 km ... 56.7 mpg (Imp)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage 1.2 automatic: 39.7 mpg (US) ... 16.9 km/L ... 5.9 L/100 km ... 47.6 mpg (Imp)
Then it would look like this
Mercedes-Benz Bionic concept - Mercedes reported a drag coefficient of 0.19;[2]
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 62.4 mpg (US) ... 26.5 km/L ... 3.8 L/100 km ... 74.9 mpg (Imp)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage 1.2 automatic: 39.7 mpg (US) ... 16.9 km/L ... 5.9 L/100 km ... 47.6 mpg (Imp)
I think it looks like a car should, not like some ridiculous caricature.
Having said that, I think a car should be of practical use, why else would you buy it?
For example: On many competing new models the bottom part of the rear windows are up much higher than the front ones, totally stupid. If you have ever had a kid in the rear strapped into a child seat, and the kid can't see out of the too high window, it will scream its head off. Terror for everyone in the car. You will never want to travel in that car with a kid again. The mirage is different.
Another point, it will not look old-fashioned in a few years.
Another point: It was made to be cheap to buy and operate without looking cheap, to be light weight and to have an excellent aerodynamic design. A real aerodynamic design, not just a fake aerodynamic look. Many other cars may look like aerodynamic without being so. Rather like flying with air brakes on.
Another point: Look at the power of the engine and compare it to the maximum speed. Look at competing models. Similar powered cars will not get that fast - so much for the aerodynamics. Good aerodynamics saves you a lot of money. In this county most highways have no speed limits, and this car is good for a comfortable ride around 130kmh. What more do you want?
foama
Last edited by foama; 05-17-2014 at 08:35 AM.
I always thought the Mirage looked good from most angles but maybe not from the front. I think the sedan has corrected that and looks great, especially at a $15,000 price.
^ ^ .
Eh ... the face of the sedan looks like a clone of every other car out there.
I prefer the Mirage's face