Style vs substance: cars which might surprise you

The Fiat Group, and especially the Alfa Romeo division, has contributed many fine-looking machines that turn out to be as dynamically able as a shopping trolley. The two Alfas that really stand out are the Brera and the 4C. The Brera is a stunning-looking coupé that’s instantly recognisable. Add to this shape one of Alfa’s fabulous V6 engines and you should have an instant classic. Unfortunately, Alfa also added a lot of weight – indeed, so much that rival engineers couldn’t understand how the Brera could weigh 1800kg.

It’s also rather hard to understand how Alfa managed to make such a mess of the 4C. The ingredients were premium quality with carbonfibre prepared by Dallara. The final result, however, particularly in Spider form, is one of the most incompetent sports cars that I’ve driven.

To many, the criticism of those Alfas will be sacrilege, but just to prove that there’s no xenophobia here, I will nominate a couple of home-grown beauties whose appeal fades when you start their engines. Ever since childhood, and specifically watching Daktari on the telly, I’ve loved the look of a Land Rover. Then, as an adult, I drove one. It was an ex-army Series 2 and, since then, I’ve driven all subsequent generations. All are terrible to drive unless you’re in the jungle.

The snotter in high-class clothing is the Jaguar XJ220. I didn’t like the V6 engine, I didn’t like the inadequate brakes and I didn’t like the fact that it was very difficult to feel what the car was doing. I drove both an XJ220 and a F40 on the same day at Donington Park. The Ferrari was quick and focused the mind, but it was easy to feel its limits. I couldn’t feel the Jag’s and nearly lost it at huge speed through the Craner Curves.

A Brit in the other camp is the MG ZS 180, created during the death throes of Rover by a hugely talented (and fast-working) team of chassis engineers. By carefully tuning the bushes, springs and dampers that were attached to the Honda-designed suspension, a dull-looking Rover 45 saloon was turned into a dynamic wonder. And with Rover’s KV6 engine, it was even brisk.

These engineers did similarly clever work on the 200 and 75 to create the ZR and ZT. They were also good, but they didn’t have the strange appeal of looking as dull as a wet afternoon in Bognor Regis and didn’t drive as well as the ZS.

The Peugeot 205 GTi has acquired hero status, but a car that shared its underpinings and propulsion system, the Citroën Visa GTi, has not. The 2CV, Ami and other Citroëns are quirky; the Visa is simply ugly. Which is a shame, because it’s possibly an even better car to drive than the Peugeot. I owned a 205 GTi but wouldn’t have handed over a fiver for a Visa GTi. I’m wiser now and would welcome the Citroën onto my drive.

Mercedes-Benz, having given us the rock-solid and tasteful W124 E-Class, then completely lost the plot and replaced it with the W210. Quality was absent, rust was prevalent and those ghastly headlights… All the more frustrating that the E55 version, which was essentially the first of the mass-market AMG models, was a such a great car to drive. Go further back in Mercedes’ history and you’ll find cars that fall into our other category. The 1950s 190SL is a lovely looking car, the poor man’s 300SL, but drives like a worn-out taxi.

Porsche has a long history of producing cars that drive wonderfully but fail the beauty contest. Going right back we have the 914 and, more specifically, the 914/6. Porsche’s project with Volkswagen could never be called attractive but was a cracking car to drive – especially the six-cylinder version.

More recently, however, we have the original Porsche Panamera. I remember being at an Autocar Handling Day at Goodwood. I was in a Panamera, chasing Steve Sutcliffe, who was driving a Jaguar XFR. He had 500bhp to my 300-and-something and is a far quicker driver than me, but I was stuck to his rear bumper lap after lap. The Panamera is dynamically excellent, just like the Porsche Cayenne. But like that SUV, it’s also hideously ugly.