Food for thought: some people rely on good looking cars to pull in chicks. :lol:
Even if I had an Evo, personally I wouldn't waste money on cosmetic pish posh. The VR4 is by no means an eye sore as some of you -very backward, I might add- Evo owners are subtly suggesting. To me, (and at the end of the day, the person's opinion that counts) that underrated yet tough stance is absolute perfection. It looks menacing to those who are well aware of what it is, what it's brought to motoring, and what it can still do to many cars on the road today, yet extremely placid to those who don't; more importantly, most cops fall into the latter category, unlike you Evo boys. :wink:
And to be comparing it to a VL? I won't even bother to get upset, clearly you said this to get a reaction TOM, and you knew you'd stir up very passionate owners. In terms of age, it can be compared to a VL, obviously. Engine potential too is very potent in both engines also; but the fact that the frequency of these in Melbourne - especially the Northern Suburbs- when compared to the occurance of a VR4 on the road, is but one evidential key point that these cars are far from being such easy comparisons.
And if you do want to argue the legitimacy of a VR4's aesthetic appeal, check out those Jap and Thai VR4s.
Besides, a majority of the "casual" car enthusiasts out there on the road probably look at you, laugh and think "haha, this moron's kitted a Lancer, how rice."
Evo boys, respect your elders!
- Anth