Skip to content
Meet the moderators of these forums
PhilMcNamara
lokinen
kubrick
TimPollard
car4mh
Meet them all
Meet the experts in these forums
CAR magazine
Keywords
You are in... Forums > General > Design > Double-takes and lookalikes
Joined:
Aug 07
Posts: 3693
AReader says:
Jalopnik did a piece on automotive doppelgangers a while back. There are quite a few on there that we have not covered on this thread. Enjoy!
http://jalopnik.com/5664826/whats-your-favorite-automotive-doppelganger
I remember thinking the 2004 Mitsubishi Gallant was quite a fine looking car. It seems Lincoln may have felt the same way, because their 2008 MKS bears a striking resemblance. These are not the best pics, but there is a similarity at the front, and also in profile - the greenhouse, high swept back window line and flat sides - and high trunk. Pretty much everything then!
Attached images:
Feb 07
Posts: 4482
bertandnairobi says:
AReader said: I remember thinking the 2004 Mitsubishi Gallant was quite a fine looking car. It seems Lincoln may have felt the same way, because their 2008 MKS bears a striking resemblance. These are not the best pics, but there is a similarity at the front, and also in profile - the greenhouse, high swept back window line and flat sides - and high trunk. Pretty much everything then!
Crikey, Areader. You´ve found another one. I´ve been enjoying thinking about some of the odd couples you found earlier. They are far more convincing than the ones I cited.
Thanks B&N - I appreciate your appreciation. Of course, you deserve further appreciation for starting this thread in the first place. It just so happened to be a subject that I enjoy thinking about seriously and with humour. I have looked back over all the pages so far - quite an eclectic mix!
Thanks also to Batty for his compliment on my Stromberg scoop. It is fun to think of some of the leaders of the industry as Bond like villains fighting for supremacy. The high level of competition between them means that none of them are likely to achieve their goals quite like they would hope - but ironically together they might well end up destroying the world. Who would have thought that CO2 would be like a poison gas? I better stop there - I have no intention of turning this thread into one of those climate type debates.
I attach the photo below, not as lookalikes - more as an interesting comparison!
Mar 08
Posts: 4885
Batty says:
Thanks for the link AR, those Jalopnik chappies are fun. Are you on there?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
Dec 06
Posts: 1803
car4mh says:
I've enjoyed following the development of this thread, but haven't been able to come up with a suitable example to share. So here's a mild diversion as they are all clearly the same basic vehicle...a vehicle that we all apparently just can't get enough of.
One of these white 911s is the new Carrera GTS...can you tell which one? Extra carrera-credit if you identify the other two variants pictured.
Aug 06
Posts: 2262
lokinen says:
Number of times i've done a double take after assuming that one of these was a 1 series
Beep Beep
car4mh said: I've enjoyed following the development of this thread, but haven't been able to come up with a suitable example to share. So here's a mild diversion as they are all clearly the same basic vehicle...a vehicle that we all apparently just can't get enough of. One of these white 911s is the new Carrera GTS...can you tell which one? Extra carrera-credit if you identify the other two variants pictured.
------ End Quote ------
You have made my brain hurt. I don't like you anymore Kiwi bro, I have a Tuesday to get through you know!
Well spotted mate! I think the Lincoln is the better looking car though, actually better than a 3, C class and A4 as well. A very handsome car indeed.
The GTS is pic #2. The main air intake is divided into three by a couple of extra vertical ribs at the sides. I know this because I just looked at a pic of a GTS. That car also had Carrera GTS logos on the door panels which are missing from your car car4mh!
As for the others, #3 has red brake calipers, so must be more "Porsche" than #1 which does not. So perhaps #3 is a 4S while #1 is just an S? I can't believe I'm bothering to do this......
Fields marked with an asterisk * are required
