V6 vs 172

[TC.]

Battle of the phase 1s, front end of a 172 is way better looking than a v6. Am I right ?

 

[RSRowe]

No

 

[Mr Underhill]

Battle of the phase 1s, front end of a 172 is way better looking than a v6. Am I right ?

View attachment 1664297

View attachment 1664296

No

 

[Stefan.]

Not so sure...

 

[Steve1986]

I like them both and I think they're cool. Objectively speaking though, they're both pretty s**t

 

[McGherkin]

V6 looks faintly ridiculous, a bit max power, a bit S1600, but not right. 172 looks purposeful but somewhat restrained.

 

[Jekyll]

I'm going against the masses and think the 172 is better looking than a ph1 V6. I think because it looks smaller. The headlights look better suited for sure.

Not taking it away front the v6 in general as there cool cars but out of the 2 above, I prefer the standard 172.

Ph2 V6 > Ph1 V6, looks wise.

 

[OssPoop]

172's ears stick out too far.

 

[Daniel]

172 for me. All day long.

Ph2 however….

 

[DaveL485]

Erm...nope.

 

[RustyMojo]

Too much chin and pointy elbows…I’m out.

 

[Superwoman90]

Nope.

 

[Ant1]

Yes

 

[Martin_172]

one angle with the V6 is flawed, its like Carol Vorderman, if your just looking at the face its not all that, you need to take in the full package

 

[TC.]

one angle with the V6 is flawed, its like Carol Vorderman, if your just looking at the face its not all that, you need to take in the full package

Yeah it’s the only angle let’s it down.

I mean