Originally Posted by calbert1999
Detroit is further north than where I live so, let's not get into the ignorant Canadian weather debate.
The analogy of a car with no roof is like a house without proper support beams. Once you cut the roof off the vehicle you simply lose a very large portion of the stability. Why would someone pay for that?
The article clearly shows that the vehicle without the roof now weighs in more than the coupe because they have to put numerous support braces all over the vehicle to compensate for the lack of a missing roof.
So personally for me, I could never "understand" why someone would pay for a less performing "muscle" car.
If we were commenting on a vert BMW, or Mercedes, then I would understand, but not on a Vette or Camaro. But, then again, it's obvious vert lovers aren't purchasing the vehicle for performance.
I can't speak for everyone else, but personally- yes, I do understand im paying more for a less performing version of the same car. I've given up the competition (not that I was ever a contender ) for the "fastest car in the world." Inevitably, no matter what you do, someones gonna be faster. I've graduated to the stage of looks and comfort weighing in just as important as performance. Therefor, I don't mind losing a few HP or milliseconds through corners when I know I can cruise S Florida in a bad ass car with the top down all night, and when the time is right,still smoke the rice-burner off the light!
Personal preference. Doesn't necessarily mean one taste is better than the other... (although I see far more coupe .owners bashing the verts than the other way around... interesting ...)