Here’s Why That Meme About The Ferrari Purosangue Looking Like A Mazda MX-30 Is Stupid

Ferrmazdalook Top
ADVERTISEMENT

I’m not exactly sure what it is about pointing out that cars of the same general category tend to have some basic visual similarities. Whatever it is, it’s apparently appealing for the sorts of people you like to keep at the other side of the room from you at parties. Remember late last year and that dumb meme of all the white SUVs? That was a big hit among all those people who don’t know a Corolla from a cruller, and now it’s effectively returned, with another stupid meme, this time comparing a Ferrari Purosangue and a Mazda MX-30. Let’s take a moment to shit all over this stupid meme, shall we?

First, in case you’ve somehow missed this thing which has been all over the damn place, mazel tov, and I’m envious and sorry I’m about to ruin your streak:

Ferrari Mazda Meme1

Okay, so, yes, both of these red, generally sportily-designed SUVs have sorta similar rooflines and four largeish wheels sorta-similar side windows and if you look at them through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars or through a wet t-shirt or after a fistful of pills you found in a ziplock bag by the creek, then, sure, they look kinda similar.

Also, Mazda obviously spent many millions developing the MX-30 (a typical vehicle program can cost $1 Billion), but that’s not the point, here. You know what is a valid point? That’s not even an MX-30. It’s a Mazda CX-30. This is an MX-30:

Mx 30

That really doesn’t look like the Purosangue. But whatever, we’ll keep with the CX-30 and pretend like completely misidentifying the car doesn’t already tell us what we need to know about this meme, even though it does.

You know what else looks kinda similar to other things that aren’t really that first thing? All kinds of things. If you’re willing to ignore important visual details like proportion or shape or contour or pattern or any of those clearly insignificant things, then all kinds of shit looks like all kinds of other shit. Here, look:

Thingslookalike

Do you mix up apples and tomatoes or handsome big cats for Ron Perlman? If so, then yeah, you might try to drive off in a Mazda CX-30 when you own a Ferrari Purosangue because you think that’s your car, you big inattentive dummy.

Let’s just take another look at these two cars, just for funsies, why not?

Ferrari Mazda Full

Aside from being generally SUV-shaped, these two vehicles don’t really look the same, I mean not if you’re someone who actually gives a brace of BMs about cars in any way at all. The stance is completely different, the shape of the windows isn’t actually the same, and the proportion of those windows to the rest of the body is different. The beltline on the Ferrari kicks up far earlier and at a very different angle, the lower body sides on the Ferrari have a dramatic pinch, and the fenders are far more dramatically curved and much larger in width.

The Mazda’s front-end treatment is completely different, as is all of the lighting design. All the details – door handles, wheels, that heat exhaust vent on the Ferrari just under the A-pillar, the hood contours, everything, it’s all different, sometimes dramatically. If you were in front of these two cars, even in exactly the same color, and you still couldn’t tell them apart, I’m taking your keys away, because you would be in no condition to drive.

I asked our own Professional Cranky British Car Designer about this, Adrian Clarke, and he had some very relevant thoughts to add:

“It’s like saying you and me are identical because we both have two eyes, two legs and no foreskin.”

While I haven’t confirmed Adrian’s circumcision, everything else checks out, and he’s right. Nobody would mistake us for each other. If we stand next to each other, we look like Frodo and Gandalf, if Frodo stopped caring about what he wore and if Gandalf was a little more punk. I asked Adrian if he could elaborate, using the full power of his Royal College of Art automotive design training and education, and he did not disappoint:

Yes, Autocar, you’re geniuses: SUV silhouettes do look alike! Does that mean they all look the same? I don’t know? Do these look the same?

Mensilhouettes

Hey they do! I guess all male-identifying humans look the same, too when you reduce them to a basic silhouette, huh? How cool! Does it matter that one is Idris Elba and one is Mark Zuckerberg? Would you be able to tell them apart if you saw them parked next to each other in a Target parking lot? Probably not, right, because they all look the same! See, I’m cool because I notice these things! Nothing matters!

If you shared that meme, and indulged in a smug little chuckle, then I hope you enjoyed that, because now I and so many other people who are actually able to look at cars think you’re a ninny. Yes, car types have generally similar designs, but if you think that means car design is dead and everything looks the same, that’s because you’re not really looking.

I hope this is the last time we have to talk about these stupid “cars look kinda the same sorta” memes, but I’m not going to hold my breath. Because if I did, I could give myself brain damage and come out thinking all cars look the same.

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

About the Author

Mercedes Streeter

View All My Posts

135 thoughts on “Here’s Why That Meme About The Ferrari Purosangue Looking Like A Mazda MX-30 Is Stupid”

  1. I think a large proportion of people paying well over $400,000 for a sports car probably expects a silhouette that’s distinctive to people other than car journalists. Seems distinct from the memes comparing the silhouettes of cars in the 40-60,000 dollar range. As such I’m labeling this meme NOT THAT STUPID.

    1. I would say, after a day of bunfighting it out down here orchestra pit, that ‘reductive and lazy’ would be better than just calling it stupid.

  2. In 1985 when everybody was making 2 box FWD hatchbacks, how come Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar, and Lamborghini were not? Enthusiasts are pissed because we feel we don’t need any more CUVs let alone any from a prestigious brand known for sporting automobiles.

  3. While I agree this is just an easy laugh for simpletons, it does illustrate that lots of people simply don’t have an eye for detail. I’m a member of several Facebook groups for car nerds like Badge Engineered Design and Shared Partsposting, and fairly often people have posted photos of two different cars claiming they’re the same vehicle or same parts when they’re clearly not if you actually look at the details and give it more than a passing glance. Yet some of those people double down when they’re challenged, so they’re not just posting for the LOLs – they just can’t see the differences. I genuinely think their eye or brain can’t process the small details, whereas they seem glaringly obvious to me.

    1. Yes this is a good point. My visual acuity is insane (for certain things) but I do think thats partly a ‘knowing what to look for thing’.

  4. To people who don’t care about cars, all cars look more alike than different. To people who do care about cars, all these subtleties matter a lot. The former group doesn’t care about this meme, and the latter group picks it apart like this, so who is that meme really for anyway? Know your audience.

  5. ” Does it matter that one is Idris Elba and one is Mark Zuckerberg?”

    I always thought they were the same person, like Dwayne Johnson and the Rock.

  6. I think what’s actually going on here is that up until the recent premium/exotic CUV/SUV craze Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and Aston-Martins never shared packaging setups with family commuter cars, and therefore never shared remotely similar silhouettes. Ten years ago it would be impossible to see an Aston-Martin out of the corner of your eye and think it’s a Ford Escape. Now, because exotic cars’ shapes are becoming less exotic this kind of comparison is possible. Which to me wouldn’t be great if I were in the market for an exotic car.
    Also, I think its a testament to Mazda’s design language and studio that its little $20-35k subcompact cuv is being compared so favorably to a Ferrari that came out 3 years later. Plus, Mazda’s red is better

    1. Exactly this. You want to build a tall-ish 4-door with big wheels and really good aero, then it’s going to look like this. Kinda like how hybrids and EVs seem mostly fish-shaped and 200MPH supercars all converge on being limpet-shaped.

  7. Bruh. It looks like a MX-30 – a decidedly boring, bland SUV.

    You know what I’ve never heard at a party?

    “Man, come check out my sweet new MX-30!”

    And I didn’t realize people categorize people into ‘other side of the room’ folk at parties past high school, but noted . . .

  8. I think that the real affront here is that consumer trends forced Ferrari to come up with a CUV design in the first place. Once you’re in that space, the end result is pretty much determined before the design is finalized.

    1. I bet it you see a Purosangue and say, a Urus side by side the volumes are very different (please note this is an ongoing investigation and if further evidence arises I may have to eat my words).

      1. Yeah, that’s why nobody thinks the Lamborghini looks like a Mazda. The point is, when premium exotics went into the CUV/SUV space, they invited the comparison to downmarket vehicles. 10 years ago nobody was comparing a Ferrari FF to a CX-5, because Ferrari and other exotics were using setups that downmarket brands simply couldn’t.

  10. Slightly off topic but I find the name “purosangue” a bit unfortunate. I know, I know, it technically translates to “thoroughbred” but also it literally translates to “pure blood” and I can’t shake the feeling that this car’s target group is secretly Lord Voldemort and his buddies.

    1. It’s so weird that CUVs caught on in the US when hatchbacks never could. They’re the exact same damned thing lifted 3″. Honda HR-V? ABSOLUTELY! Honda Fit? No thanks….

      like wtf?

      1. It’s because the majority of people in this country who can afford new cars are elderly customers who want something easy to get in and out of, and the rest are basic and just buy what everyone else buys to fit in.

  13. When you start to look at “what was the nearest equivalent 40 years ago?” which was 1983 God help us, there was the Ferrari Mondial and Mazda GLC wagon, cars which looked as different as they actually were.

  14. Side profiles do look the same, and that’s more of a knock on Ferrari for not trying to come with something radical and different.

    It’s a lot like how I confused a Q8 for a Urus the other day. Great for Audi, terrible for Lambo.

    1. See my comment below. They are miles part when you look at photos not taken by someone who doesn’t know a camera aperture from their butt hole.

  15. Jason, I love what you do, but come on. From the side, they don’t look ‘kinda similar’, they’re a few details away from being practically identical.
    Way, way more so than those 50’s four doors you posted.
    And yes, I’m only talking about the side profile, from any other view they look very different.

    1. Go on Netcarshow and look at proper high res press shots and not two burner phone pics shot with Vaseline on the lens and get back to me.

      1. If Jason wanted proper high res press shots to be commented on, then that’s what he should have used.
        I commented on what was presented to us.

      2. Why does Jason get to use hand drawn pictures of cars from the ’50s in an attempt to prove his argument, but apparently we need HD high resolution pictures to prove the Purosangue isn’t a CX-30?

        1. Because this is the meme that’s going around, and people are calling Jason and I out saying we’re wrong, getting fighty in the comments. So I presented people with an opportunity to see for themselves that the Purosangue and Mazda are completely different visually, that’s not good enough?

          Stop being so obtuse.

          1. Look, if you are going to claim we should be looking at HD images, why aren’t you giving us HD images of other vehicles in the argument itself? It’s not obtuse, it’s calling out a shitty argumentative tactic.

            ” So I presented people with an opportunity to see for themselves that the Purosangue and Mazda are completely different visually, that’s not good enough?”

            They aren’t “completely different”. That’s the entire point. I expect out of car enthusiasts, and certainly more out of a car designer. A watch enthusiast wouldn’t be surprised that a casual observer might confuse a Rolex Submariner and a Casio Duro. If you don’t understand what the layman will see, how can you describe yourself as a car designer. Are you only designing cars that will be looked at by well trained eyes?

            I can at the same time admit that they are very similar, but I can also recognize differences. You are acting like there’s no truth behind this dumb meme, which is just silly. The reason it’s funny is because there is some truth. And again, if you need perfect lighting and HD images to see all the differences, isn’t that just even further proof of all the similarities?

            Get over yourself. For being in a field so rife with subjective tastes, it’s astonishing that you take criticism so poorly.

            1. We debunked the original meme, because it’s stupid, and that’s why we presented the meme as it’s been going around.

              I was asked for my opinion, and gave good, considered, well argued reasons why the meme is stupid. I was called out for that, so I gave you the opportunity to do thirty seconds research to see for yourself why the meme is stupid because in real life, these two cars look nothing alike.

              1. Have your “well argued reasons” convinced a single person to change their opinion? You keep acting like this is an objective thing, rather than the subjective thing it is. You haven’t written a lengthy math proof of why 0.999999 = 1, you’ve stated a bunch of subjective takes and have basically claimed those on the other side of those takes are wrong. That’s not how arguments work.

                Personally, I think they look close enough that I understand the meme. I can see the differences, but to claim they are so staunchly “completely different” just seems silly to me when so many people are claiming otherwise, and again, it is entirely subjective.

    2. “A few details” meaning that all they’d need to change is the front overhang, headlight profile, lower cladding, tumblehome, 2nd and 3rd window shape, taillights profile, door handles, fender flares / widebody design, and the rear half of the roof.

      Where are the people calling out the Burj Khalifa for looking like the Empire State Building? Both are tall grey buildings with many windows that narrow to a spike at the top.

    3. I can certainly say that The silhouette of say Jason Mamoa is definitely different than the Torch, as he mentions, so I don’t think the two eyes, two legs and no foreskin retort is valid and thus all of his comments are also invalid at this point.

  16. Yes, the meme misses the point. But if Ferrari wants to sell pigs, it can’t complain about the smell. If they are making SUVs now, being bland is part of the specification by sheer volume of other offerings. All the interesting are taken by now!

    2. I’m not exactly an SUV apologist but calling the Purosangue bland is simply incorrect. Even ignoring subjective design details like the interesting active and passive aero trickery, the proportions don’t lie. It’s not even remotely the same thing as a FWD four cylinder grocery getter. You can hate. You can love it. You can’t call it boring.

  18. Everyone makes excellent points in this thread, but there can be no denying that both cars have quite similar silhouettes and thus the meme also has a point.

    Sure, it’s a fairly petty point about the irony of a boutique brand versus a mid-market brand reaching twinning profiles, but I don’t think it’s just plain stupid. Sorry to disagree with you JT.

    What I really want to read about are the taillights on both cars! 😉

  20. No, I’m tired of automotive journalists giving a pass to boring ass design.

    All designers want to do is whine that they are hemmed in by FMVSS and pedestrian crash tests, and to that I simply say innovate – reject the blob-ifying styling of modern automobiles and design something fresh that doesn’t follow so much of the styling conventions – I know that OEM’s even push this type of design to have common looks between vehicles in a single brand – which again is stupid – the best example being Lexus’s predator mouth grille – it works on the LC500 but not on the RX570. Similar things could be said for ALL modern Pontiacs, many GM products and Ford’s obsession with tri bar grilles in the oughts.

    The Mazda and the Ferrari are more similar design wise than they different in major ways, I don’t know if that’s a compliment to Mazda or an insult to Ferrari. They remind me of the COT NASCAR bodies, slightly different visuals, but a body template from one would fit on the other.

    You point to the 50’s but those cars are WILDLY different. All of the body lines are different, though they share a 3 box design. It’s even more apparent in actual photos where you can see the shape of the body. Not to mention the variety in the design of one year only models and the complexity of the shapes in these vehicles something utterly impossible to do today due to costs and needless complexity of the modern automobile.

    Stop making boring cars that look like blobs. Bring back bold body lines and trim that isn’t black plastic cladding. If the auto industry can create a market that doesn’t actually exist with EV’s they can create a market for good looking vehicles.

    1. That’s why they have an actual professional car designer here. I’m a designer first and writer second. And I’ve been in and around car design and worked in an OEM studio and know exactly how the sausage is made.
      If you want a primer on the legislative considerations (actually they’re not consideration THEY ARE LEGALLY MANDATED) grab a copy of H Point – The Fundamentals of Car Design and Packaging. Get the second edition.
      If you read enough of my writing, here and elsewhere I don’t give anyone a pass.

      1. They still do look similar. Being a professional designer doesn’t make anyone immune from disagreement, no matter how hard you try to throw that around.

        Ex: Plenty of professional traffic engineers are wrong about what makes a road safe.

        1. Absolutely true, but to quote that hoary old cliche, you are not entitled to your opinion; you are only entitled to what you can argue for.

          The original comment said he was sick of designers getting a pass automotive media. To a point this is fair, as most of them haven’t got a fucking clue what they are talking about because they’ve never drawn a car in their lives. Also, have you seen how they dress? Nobody should be listening to their opinions on aesthetics.

          Now, this is the sticky part. I DO know what I’m talking about. I studied for seven years, got a bachelors and then a masters in the discipline. I then got hired to actually do the job. Getting real cars into production. Now, I know what makes for a well designed car. You might not agree with me, but that doesn’t make you right and me wrong. I wouldn’t dream of coming to tell you how you’re doing your job wrong. But (and this is not directed at you or anyone specficallly) feel free to critique designers without having the requisite skills or experience.

          You might not like how a certain car looks, but that doesn’t make it a bad design. My fallback analogy is this: I personally cannot fucking stand The Beatles and would never by choice listen to them. But, I’m know I’m well on the wrong side of critical opinion with this because a lot of people do like them.

          I’ve covered a lot of this in my previous articles here and elsewhere, and I do take a bit of a dim view of people saying things like “well all design is subjective anyway”. No, it’s not. If a bunch of designers agree something is good then it is good, even if you don’t like it.

          Sorry this has been a long and punchy response, but I’m sick and have other stufff going on so sorry if it came over a bit strong. But I absolutely will not stand for ‘designers are lazy’, ‘designers don’t know what they’re doing’ etc etc.

          My experience and credentials are extremely qualified and relevant – that’s why they hired me here (and elsewhere – and to teach).

          1. I do like your music analogy very much. I myself can’t stand the Beatles, but I know that their music is “well made”, that is, they are competent and know how to compose and play, and whatever is in there (notes, lyrics, tempo, rhyme etc) is well built and has a deliberate purpose. I just happen not to like the style, and that’s the subjective part – so, I don’t even think yoi and I are “wrong” for not enjoying their music. Popular doesn’t mean right, just means that enough people find it good enough to pay for it.

          2. Thank you for having the courage to stand up to the tyranny of Beatles music. Although they are fine musicians, I am not a fan and sometimes I wonder if anyone really likes their music or if people just go along with it. Emperor’s new clothes sort of thing…

          3. Honestly, the fact that people are debating the design is proof it’s not the boring blob it is being portrayed as. People don’t have opinions on boring things. A Ferrari should be bold and therefore polarizing and this is exactly the result you’d expect from a bold and polarizing design.

            1. This is a good point, and partly why I started writing in the first place. However at some point, the master is going call the student out, tell them why they are wrong, and any further insubordination will result in the student being to the Autopian taillight mines.

      2. A car designer is the absolute last person I’d turn to on the question of whether one car can be easily distinguished from another. You literally differentiate design features for a living, of course they look very different to you.

        1. That’s a take I’ve not heard before, and it’s a good one. Part of what I try to do here is to educate and explain, why things are the way they are, and hopefully we can all have fun along the way.

          This is gonna sound REALLY egotistical, but something I love is listening to smart people talk about subjects I know nothing about, in an engaging way. Think Richard Feynman, Jason Fenske, Jonathon Meades (insert your favourite).

          I try to do the same thing about car design, because it’s a misunderstood area, there are a lot of misconceptions and it’s rarely talked about in a non-bullshit way. And it happens to be my area of expertise and experience.

  23. What gave me a bonus chuckle is that the MX-30, which looks nothing like the Purosangue, does have rear suicide doors in common with it, whereas the CX-30, which looks “more” like the Ferrari (insofar as it doesn’t look *nothing* like it) does not.

  24. It’s just coincidence all over again, a first gen Miata, just happened to look like a Lotus Elan. Same thing has happened here. It is just monkeys and typewriters it has to happen, nothing to see here.

        1. Sorry about that! I’ll try and see what’s catching you. There are hopefully no more spam comments (we are deleting them as they come up). What you don’t see are the hundreds of spam comments that get caught up in our filter as they try to mutate their way until they get something that passes.

    3. Yes I would agree. Mazda has consistently been doing very strong work for a number of years now, although I think the new CX60 and weirdly, the MX5 are both a bit of a miss.

Leave a Reply