Perceived Wealth

For those of us that don't have the money to spend on a new Mercedes S-Class, U.S. News and World Report has an article on "affordable cars that make you look rich."

Now, I would love to have an expensive car. However, the reason for that is not because I want to look rich to people that don't know anything about cars. I want a nice car because it offers something that a cheaper car does not, whether it be speed, comfort, space, or other features. Or perhaps because it looks good, not necessarily because it looks expensive. There are plenty of cheap cars that look good and conversely, plenty of expensive cars that look terrible.

First off is the Kia Soul. Can I just make it quite clear that no one that drives a Kia will be perceived as having an expensive car? There is a driving school in the business park where I work, and one of the cars they use for student drivers is a Kia Soul. Even the people that can't tell a Honda Accord from an Audi A8 will not be fooled. Absolutely no one will think, "wow, that man drives a Kia Soul, he must be very rich."

We've established that the car does not look expensive. Does it at least look good, then?

Well, the article says "it looks different." That is a nice way of saying, "never in my life have I seen something quite as hideous." I used to think the Dodge Nitro was the ugliest car on the market. And then the Kia Soul came around, shattering all preconceived notions of what is socially acceptable. I'm actually offended by its looks. Who was the genius that thought bags under the eyes would be a good idea? A donkey, for instance, is more elegant. I cringe every time I see this car on the road. Then I try to drive as far away from it as possible, because clearly it is being driven by a blind person.

Next, the article mentions the Suzuki Kizashi, a car that no one has ever seen or heard before. That's because while Suzuki makes some of the best motorcycles in the world (supposedly; I have no experience or interest in this field), the same cannot be said about their cars. It's one of the seven wonders of the modern world: how can a company that produces such insanely quick motorcyles as the GSX-1300R Hayabusa create such dreary cars on a consistent basis?

But who knows, maybe this new one is exciting. That's not to say anything about whether it makes you look rich or not. Which, it doesn't. Even if it didn't have a Suzuki badge on it, the design is rather dull and I'm fairly confident I could pick it out as the cheap one.

The Mazda MX-5 has always been a fun little car. I guess it could possibly make you look rich to the people that can't tell the difference between it and a Porsche Boxster.

The Chrysler 300 is a difficult one. It mimics the styling of a Bentley (albeit rather badly) and at $40,000, it's not exactly at the bottom end of the scale. It's a large car with shiny chrome bits, so I guess a clueless person could be fooled into thinking it's something more expensive. Take a step inside, however, to dispel any such ideas. The materials and design look cheaper than that of a Toyota Corolla. It's also fairly dated and it looks that way too; the car has been around since 2005 and it's based on the Mercedes-Benz W210 E-Class, which was first introduced in 1996.

And finally, the Ford Flex. Not a bad looking car, I admit. According to the article, it's cheaper than something like a Cadillac Escalade but doesn't look so, which is a fair point. It's also smaller, but nonetheless, I think the same argument that applies to the Mazda MX-5 can be applied here.

I guess the problem is, I don't look at a car and think "that must be expensive" because in general, I know if a car is expensive or not. So really, I have no business critiquing this article in the first place.