Gen v = "butter face"
- Thread starter PJ9454
- Start date
cfiiman
Viper Owner
Damn that rendering is BADASS!!!!!!!
You must be registered for see images attach
Possibly she is better looking in person? Could be true...but the bottomline is eventually she is gonna end up in a family photo and you gotta explain to everyone, she looks better in person.
Last edited:
SnakeBitten
Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 18, 2001
- Posts
- 2,550
- Reaction score
- 0
^^LOL.......I have issues too with the small eyelash headlights too but the Gen V at least looks way better than her lol.
eucharistos
Enthusiast
Is that really you?
lol, j/k bro.
Weak, weak argument though, so many cars look so-so in pics & when you see them in real life they are awesome, especially exotics. When the Gen3 was announced the initial reaction was, 'it looks like an S2000, eww'. I even gave up my place in line at the time because I hadn't seen it in person & the pics just made it look thin & flat & small, etc. In person, you see the deep cuts and the hard lines of the car, the real width, etc, and I was back onboard.
I think you're personally trying to hard to justify that it's OK that you haven't seen it, hec until Sunday I hadn't, and I was 75% liking it, now I'm 100% excited about it. Just don't be hatin when you do see it just to argue that seeing it didn't matter. ;-)
But I think we're all in agreement, some tweaking to the headlights of some kind could be cool.
The argument is funny though you gotta admit. But you know that dual headlight thing really does help that car. I just really dont want that car to hit the streets looking so girly. It hurts the reputation of all us Viper owners. They have to do something...also they need to throw that Garnet red color they painted that car in the trash bin. Gawd what an awful color for a performance car. Ugggh.
You know I said the same thing about the color, I was like burgundy, really??? That's about as bad as Ford's GT500 ad with it in baby blue with white stripes, all it needed was a pacifier in the grill. But I gotta tell ya, in person, in the sun, that paint was sick, total custom paint job look, it looked like you could reach into it like it was liquid. And I hate dark reds ... but in person, I see why they used it, now considering it's a big "in print" car for the mags, you'd think they's have gone with something better for that, but ....
Vic
VCA Venom Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Posts
- 6,764
- Reaction score
- 1
I always hated white and yellow, but never felt a need to rain on anothers' parade. Personally, I think only taxis should be yellow, and utilities vehicles should be white. But if other people like a certain color, it's nothing to me. Do what you want.
I love the new color, think it's a cut above ordinary red.
I love the new color, think it's a cut above ordinary red.
My girlfriend is a model and she has different makeup looks for Runway versus Print and a happy medium for meetings with clients. Its important to understand how the world views things. They see you in person AND in print and you need to look good in both arenas.
Areas that look weak in a photo will be covered up in real life as you can't focus on the weak areas so easy. Thats why modeling agents prefer photos of you as compared to the real you. It shows what you REALLY look like to the bulk of the people that will see you. A photo is good for flattening out the subject and seeing what it REALLY looks like.
Most people will rarely see a Viper in their lifetime except a glance as it passes on the hiway. I live in Miami and there are NO ACR's in this town and I've only seen two Gen 3's. So I need photos to make me want to buy one as there are none here in real life (you know they are here...but unlike Ferraris that are on every corner, Vipers are elusive).
Anyway, the Viper builders should have been more like Modeling agents and looked at their design in print as well as real life.
The Viper builders "could not see the forest for the trees" as they appear to have designed the car in the shop and made it look cool there, but they should have looked at photos of their subject to help them see the BIG PICTURE, the car as a whole, FLATTENED out so they can spot the weak areas. I think if they did they would have said, "Wow in a photo this headlight doesnt look as cool and needs work and this color doesn't really pop either". Its an education...but they got one. But I think there is still time to fix it.
Areas that look weak in a photo will be covered up in real life as you can't focus on the weak areas so easy. Thats why modeling agents prefer photos of you as compared to the real you. It shows what you REALLY look like to the bulk of the people that will see you. A photo is good for flattening out the subject and seeing what it REALLY looks like.
Most people will rarely see a Viper in their lifetime except a glance as it passes on the hiway. I live in Miami and there are NO ACR's in this town and I've only seen two Gen 3's. So I need photos to make me want to buy one as there are none here in real life (you know they are here...but unlike Ferraris that are on every corner, Vipers are elusive).
Anyway, the Viper builders should have been more like Modeling agents and looked at their design in print as well as real life.
The Viper builders "could not see the forest for the trees" as they appear to have designed the car in the shop and made it look cool there, but they should have looked at photos of their subject to help them see the BIG PICTURE, the car as a whole, FLATTENED out so they can spot the weak areas. I think if they did they would have said, "Wow in a photo this headlight doesnt look as cool and needs work and this color doesn't really pop either". Its an education...but they got one. But I think there is still time to fix it.
Last edited:
als 08 viper acr
Enthusiast
I have an 2008 ACR & I think the GRILLE on the Gen V looks "Mickey Mouse" . The Front of the Gen V does not look "agressive enough! This may be a small point but I like the car to look wild from the front. The Grille & the face of the 2008 thru 2010 Vipers & ACR were more "Bad A**". In fact, the Gen V looks better without the Grille(especially if it does not serve any purpose) as indicated in a previous posting. HOWEVER, I LOVE THE REST OF THE CAR
I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE COULD POST THE FRONT END OF THE 2008 -10 VIPER & ACR NEXT TO GEN V FOR COMPARISON LIKE A PREVIOUS POST DID FOR THE PROFILE OF THE VARIOUS VIPER YEARS.
05Commemorative
Enthusiast
In person, side by side, I feel we will have a different story. To see in person, I never felt it lacked agressiveness, especially when compared to prior years.
05Commemorative
Enthusiast
exactly my point. I am going with the one on the left everytime.
ZYellow01RT
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Posts
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 0
ZYellow01RT
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Posts
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you saying that because no one chose your Viper over the Gen V?
mnc2886
Enthusiast
I agree with that idea. I actually like the shape of the front end a lot, but making the whole grille carbon fibre would not only look great, but would make the opening seem "less empty," if you will. Many members on here liked the color matched grille and I think this idea kind of coincides with that one.
als 08 viper acr
Enthusiast
I would like to see the comparison with direct Head shots. I still feel my Red 08 ACR looks looks more aggressive from the front than the Gen V, however I don't know how to load the pictures side by side.
Lee00blacksilverGTS
Enthusiast
A small helping of "taste and style" for ya. About $260,000 and 300MPH worth. Look at those "girly" headlights, and Omigod look at that awful "Garnet" red color. That's what Stryker red really looks like under good lighting by the way.
And it's really not about "taste and style." I love the way my ACR looks as well, but I certainly do not want my Gen V to look EXACTLY the same. I want it to look UPDATED so it looks as good as the expensive euro cars, whose owners have always trashed the Vipers looks in the past. So we get better paint and the latest, most technologically updated headlights. EXCELLENT!
ZYellow01RT
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Posts
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 0
A small helping of "taste and style" for ya. About $260,000 and 300MPH worth. Look at those "girly" headlights, and Omigod look at that awful "Garnet" red color. That's what Stryker red really looks like under good lighting by the way.
And it's really not about "taste and style." I love the way my ACR looks as well, but I certainly do not want my Gen V to look EXACTLY the same. I want it to look UPDATED so it looks as good as the expensive euro cars, whose owners have always trashed the Vipers looks in the past. So we get better paint and the latest, most technologically updated headlights. EXCELLENT!
+1
I'm not crazy about the new ( ferrari /aston martin) look either - but then again I like gen 1/2 best. But with that in mind no need to put down their efforts...at least they started production again... we'll see where they go with it in the next couple of years
After seeing the car in person, my only issue is the headlight shape. I don't mind the LEDs, but they look a little too small and a little too....vertical in my mind. Especially when looking at the car from the side or at a 3/4 view from the front. It's a minor gripe, though. The car does look really good and I can't wait to see it in a much more aggressive paint scheme.
viper GTS-R
Enthusiast
While the headlights look similar, the ones on the Gen V are different than the Koeniggsegg. At least with that car it was born slightly ugly and then improved. The Agera makes a base CCX-CCR seem...weird.
There are points made in PJ's original post that I completely agree with. The LED lights are for Pep Boy dorks, being in Jersey this fad is on every economy car out there much like the days when stick on chrome was popular. It's great that when Mercedes/Audi etc introduced them to the world, it was a great styling aesthetic and complimented the overall front end of their cars. HOWEVER, it's 2012 and damn near every manufacture now is using them. Yeah, that's what I want to spend money on, here's a few hundred to stick a few tiny bulbs in my headlights. I'm still wondering why the Jeep SRT8 has them. Some months, years down the line people will be stripping off front bumpers, taking out the headlights and cracking them apart to fix the bulbs. Restoration is going to be a PITA in the future for sure.
Second, the exposed carbon bits. Like the LED's, great idea, BUT I really think it's about the placement of what parts are exposed. The front grille should def not be one of those parts. Why even stick the crosshairs on the car if it's made to look like a wide mouth bass? The very first thing that came to mind were the Shelby Vipers which didn't have them at all. The good news is recently Ralph said the SRT Viper (non-GTS) will be offered with painted parts instead of having exposed carbon bits. Those crosshairs have always been a pretty signature piece of the front end of the Viper, to darken them, have them in carbon while the rest of the car is sitting in awesome shade of red...just seems a wee goofy. Based on the photoshops that have been posted here, the ACR version with the carbon grille looks awesome.
Paint isn't an issue, it's a combination of colors that are selected. That GT500 in bright blue with the white stripes looks awesome. However, the Boss 302 I spotted a few weeks back in a creamy Orange with white accents and a white roof? I can only wonder if the owners eyes might actually see the car in grey and white when he ordered it.
Any single solid/metallic color works on any car. Until you add in stripes, flames, etc any little bit of artwork, well then things can get crazy. The red that was used on the Gen V is a sick color, as is the new Charger's Redline-3 pearl.
--RS
There are points made in PJ's original post that I completely agree with. The LED lights are for Pep Boy dorks, being in Jersey this fad is on every economy car out there much like the days when stick on chrome was popular. It's great that when Mercedes/Audi etc introduced them to the world, it was a great styling aesthetic and complimented the overall front end of their cars. HOWEVER, it's 2012 and damn near every manufacture now is using them. Yeah, that's what I want to spend money on, here's a few hundred to stick a few tiny bulbs in my headlights. I'm still wondering why the Jeep SRT8 has them. Some months, years down the line people will be stripping off front bumpers, taking out the headlights and cracking them apart to fix the bulbs. Restoration is going to be a PITA in the future for sure.
Second, the exposed carbon bits. Like the LED's, great idea, BUT I really think it's about the placement of what parts are exposed. The front grille should def not be one of those parts. Why even stick the crosshairs on the car if it's made to look like a wide mouth bass? The very first thing that came to mind were the Shelby Vipers which didn't have them at all. The good news is recently Ralph said the SRT Viper (non-GTS) will be offered with painted parts instead of having exposed carbon bits. Those crosshairs have always been a pretty signature piece of the front end of the Viper, to darken them, have them in carbon while the rest of the car is sitting in awesome shade of red...just seems a wee goofy. Based on the photoshops that have been posted here, the ACR version with the carbon grille looks awesome.
Paint isn't an issue, it's a combination of colors that are selected. That GT500 in bright blue with the white stripes looks awesome. However, the Boss 302 I spotted a few weeks back in a creamy Orange with white accents and a white roof? I can only wonder if the owners eyes might actually see the car in grey and white when he ordered it.
Any single solid/metallic color works on any car. Until you add in stripes, flames, etc any little bit of artwork, well then things can get crazy. The red that was used on the Gen V is a sick color, as is the new Charger's Redline-3 pearl.--RS
