Which would you rather have?
A car that's faster than it looks?
Or a car that looks faster than it is?

 

I prefer to have a car that is faster than it really is.

Many people have told me that the XF "looks fast even when it is parked" and I like it that way!!!

 

A car thats faster than it looks... because you can fool others, but you can't fool yourself.

But then again I would likely buy the car that looks fast and make it fast.

 

Gee, I want both! LOL.

 

I feel like I have it both ways with the SRT-6!

 

kjmurphy, I agree... I consider the SRT6 a true sleeper.
The normal Joe doesn't know the performance of the XF's, let
alone SRT6.
I have many drivers that want to give it a go. I almost
feel like they are picking on the XF. Well in true form,
I teach them a lesson and go on my merry way... I still
get that rush. What a feeling.

 

First off, the term "fast" is relative. How fast is "fast"? Is a stock Crossfire Limited coupe fast?

With that said, I feel most every car I've owned looked fast AND was fast. '68 350ci Firebird, '78 Mustang, '82 Datsun ZX, '90 Mazda RX7, '99 Integra GSR. All looked sporty and reasonably fast, but in fact were hardly the quickest things on the road. Much like my current XF. All of them were zippy enough and all of them were very agile. Much like my current XF.

But the way many board members feel about a stock 215 HP engine, I'm not sure if they'd consider my car "fast". I do. I even thought my 170 HP Integra as fast, but the XF is clearly faster.

So, to answer the question, I will say that I always opt for a powerful appearance as opposed to actual might. But most sporty looking cars have some degree of intrinsic brawn.