Show me where a Vert looks better than a coupe.

[Looneybomber]

I love 'verts, s2000's, F430 spyder, Carerra GT, Jag F-type, etc... But it seems the coupe (fast back) version always looks better!

For example, while doing a quick autotrader, ebay search today, I came across this. Mind you, I didn't seriously consider XK coupes until tonight! Car #2 is pure sechs.

Car 1.








Car 2






Even classics, the fastback looks better IMO!

[ADDirishboy]

I'm on my phone, so posting a pic is a PITA, but the Lamborghini Gallardo looks better without a roof.

Vert's look better when the top is actually down, but lose their appeal the moment you put the roof up.

[Jesda]

I prefer all convertibles as long as their tops are down. In the case of the current Camaro, removing the roof emphasizes the haunches over the rear wheels and tricks the eyes into thinking the beltline is a little lower.


I even like the Top Gear hack jobs where they turned a Renault Espace into a topless 7-passenger cruiser.

[Looneybomber]

I'm on my phone, so posting a pic is a PITA, but the Lamborghini Gallardo looks better without a roof.

That vert is mighty tasty! It could go either way depending on the day.

I prefer all convertibles as long as their tops are down. In the case of the current Camaro, removing the roof emphasizes the haunches over the rear wheels and tricks the eyes into thinking the beltline is a little lower.

Vert's with the top up are not good.
Boring roofline of the coupe, but the short trunk lid help. As a vert, you're right about the belt line because, as a coupe, it looks like a chop top. Those side windows are inches tall.

[Bubba1]

I prefer all convertibles as long as their tops are down. .

This^ Off the top of my head, I can only think of one convertible that looks worse with the top down....the Murano Cross-Cabriolet. It looks like a big turd that got partially stepped upon.

[Loki]

I prefer all convertibles as long as their tops are down. .

This^ Off the top of my head, I can only think of one convertible that looks worse with the top down....the Murano Cross-Cabriolet. It looks like a big turd that got partially stepped upon.

There might be no winning situation with those one though...

[gwoods]

Pretty subjective... I think sedans always look better than the coupe version of every car available either way. I also think the vert looks better than the coupe.

[94_240sx]

Just drop the top and drive around in nice weather. You don't care about the look anymore. Feeling you get is priceless. I love my vert.

[MinisterofDOOM]

For me, aesthetically, the roofline is one of the most important parts of a car. Convertibles eliminate it. There are a few (very, VERY few) that look good with their tops up, and most of these were designed from the start to be convertibles. However, in most cases, they look terrible with the top up and lacking with it down. I've never met a car I prefered in convertible form. Even most purpose-built convertibles look better once a real roof gets added. Like the Solstice, or the NB Miata, or even the spoon S2000 hardtops which are actually kind of a lazy design. Heck, even classic roadsters look better with a real roof. MGB, BMW M coupe.

Really, the only cars that look good without a roof are ones that were designed with NO ROOF AT ALL. No softop. Not convertible. Like the Lotus 7, Ariel Atom, or Morgan 3-wheeler.

The 1st generation Mustang, particularly, has an iconic roofline in both fastback and coupe forms. Convertible Mustangs are a special kind of blasphemy.

[gwoods]

mmmmm 66 fastback mustang

[frapjap]

VIPER.



Do I like the fixed roof? Sure. But I really prefer the topless version. It doesn't even have side windows, so now we're taking "vert" to an extreme.

[frapjap]

Also, the Sebring in full roof mode is awful.


Even with the top up, its far from the worst looking car with the canvas over your head.

[gwoods]

first gen viper does nothing for me either way its one of those sorry about your member cars

[Jesda]

First-gen Viper makes me giggly inside. It's crude, bold, and beastly, a product of a company that used to build crazy sh*t just because it could, just to show off, just because the auto enthusiasts, for a little while, were running the show. There wasn't a team of accountants or marketing twats involved in its production. A few key members of management had a fantasy and said to a small group of engineers, "Build this," and they did in record time. It influenced the creation of what was, at the time, the most cost- and time-efficient clay-to-showroom vehicle development system in the world.

The Viper is a HERO CAR.

Unintentionally, it also played a major role in drumming up interest from bankers, securing lines of credit for Chrysler.

[gwoods]

"marketing twats "

Can you imagine applying for that job?

[MinisterofDOOM]

VIPER.



Do I like the fixed roof? Sure. But I really prefer the topless version. It doesn't even have side windows, so now we're taking "vert" to an extreme.

I'm on the other side of the fence completely. I've always thought the R/T-10 Viper's rollbar thing looked goofy. Didn't like it from the start. Didn't like it on the concept, either. So it made my day when Chrysler released a proper version of the Viper with a real roof and not a goofy basket handle behind the driver.

That, and the whole rear end of the coupe is much nicer looking, roofline aside.

And, anyway, THIS:


Pays wonderful homage to this:

[Looneybomber]

In addition to the Sebring looking better as a vert, how about the mini cooper!





Gross!

[Bubba1]

First-gen Viper makes me giggly inside. It's crude, bold, and beastly, a product of a company that used to build crazy sh*t just because it could, just to show off, just because the auto enthusiasts, for a little while, were running the show.

I've driven both versions of the first gen. Viper. Very crude, very beastly, but insanely fun. I think the open top version of that first gen was more of a targa top, not a 'vert. But I think the coupe looked better anyway.