only if you look at cars that cost less than $100,000 in the past all cars look good - now only expensive cars do because they learned to make cheap cars ugly on purpose to push people towards more expensive models if you have $150,000 you can still have a nice looking car: image

Replies (2)

on a picture yes ... in real life in the flesh ? the SL is 7 inches wider than a Miata. SL rear tires are 50% wider on a rim that is 4" larger. believe me you will notice those things when you see the cars on the road. miata looks like a toy sports car, which is what it is. the SL looks like a luxury convertible, which is what it is. yes miata is cute. they could do this because it's their halo car. it's kind of sad though when your halo sports car has less horsepower than a prius. by comparison the SL looks good because it's a flagship for Mercedes, though not a halo car for them, because they still have the AMG ONE: image my point was that companies ugly up their lower-end models to make sure they don't look as good as their flagship models. Miata is Mazda's flagship, so it is ALLOWED to look good. unfortunately it is not a serious car. the RX-7 was a serious car - i wanted one. never wanted a Miata. so you're actually half right. the Mercedes badge does play a role - but not in the way you think. it's because Mercedes uglies up their sub $100,000 cars while Mazda does not ( because they don't have any cars over $100,000 ). for this reason a good looking Mazda means nothing because it's still a Mazda, but a good looking Mercedes does mean something. makes sense ? @Prince Aleph @OperationEunice