...
What is the car equivalent to this?
...
...
What do you mean by "equivalent" though?
Stealth? Price? Design?
This but black
...
This. Lamborghini has been trying to make their cars look like stealth planes for over a decade now.
yeah
Their theme is "bull" and they be making cars that looks like snakes and planes.
Ford Fiesta with 1.0L EcoBoost
did they model that after Batman's Boomerang?
>that windows
>that 10 square meter piece of body panel at the rear, there would fit another wheel above the rear wheel and the window
is that a shoop? I mean, it's literally one of the most ugliest cars I've ever seen, it's close to the original Multipla
Expensive, slow, can't attack in daylight if the enemy still has an air force or it will get shot down?
Fighters are high performance. Bombers haul explosives and try not to die.
>boomerang
>not batarang
Get the fuck out
Thats more wobblin goblin not spirit
More like this cause bomber
this
...
lmao
It sucks not to be an american and not know what stealth plane means
Much like a b2 It doesnt look like much except a sleek machine but fuck with it and you will feel the wrath of god.
Uncanny valley as fuck
yeah but its horrendously ugly so youll still look like a faggot
I don't know of any car that costs billions.
Of course I know what stealth planes are stupid American, I even work for Northrop Grumman
The B2 is pretty, but the cts is ugly as sin and objectively does not look sleek
Yeah and the b2 looks like a manta ray went potato your point being?
the B2 is a plane with a purpose in its design no one looks like a faggot in it
the Cadillac is just plain ugly
how do you work for them when you are too stupid to realize the difference between subjective and objective?
....fuck with a slow defenseless bomber thats made for insersion and tactical nuclear deployment cause it looks bad ass it must be bad ass? Naw.
Now this on the other hand...
Or a Saab probably.
Objectively is exactly the word I meant to write.
Everyone who thinks the CTS looks sleek is wrong. Period.
Everyone knows bombers are useless and basically defenseless in a dogfight. Are you still going to take aim at one from the ground with your stinger, jamal?
>everyone
maybe if you have the dissenting opinion then you are objectively wrong on this subjective matter
>insersion
Nice try, ahmed
That uhhh. I was just comparing to something i thought was better in regards to bombers. Not which one is easier to shoot down but aight.
Spelling error. I admit the-feet
why did you reply to me and not the op, then?