Which White?
- Thread starter neilmcl
- Start date
Forthewin
Guest
The Nevada white being metallic is much more shiny and looked more 'white' to me. I've always thought metallic paints tend too age better but maybe that's just me.
http://leaflets.ebcentre2.net/Leafl...564&use_margins=1&groupTypeID=1&culture=en-GB
Think its the old Dakota red renamed? Very different anyway...
Regarding white - it'll always be personal preference but I went for solid as I think metallic has a dirty look to it from certain angles.
I went for solid white partly as there was no additional cost involved, but mainly as I honestly dont think I have ever noticed a white car being metallic. Maybe thats just me though!
I saw this on the M1 the other day. It really caught my eye (mainly as I hadn't seen it before) but it did look really nice. Quite classy and refined.
Is that link above the Montant Red?
On the configurator it looks a nice dark rich red, there it just looks a burgundy brown.
As for the white, I know when I was looking at the Audi A1 the metallic arctic white looked much better than the solid cream white, guess it's just a decision of do you want to spend 400 quid on it!
On the configurator it looks a nice dark rich red, there it just looks a burgundy brown.
As for the white, I know when I was looking at the Audi A1 the metallic arctic white looked much better than the solid cream white, guess it's just a decision of do you want to spend 400 quid on it!
I think this is what I was concerned about but I don't think the solid white on the Seat is anything like the cream coloured "Amalfi White" that's on the Audi's. If the Seat solid white is a "proper" white rather than an off-white then I'd probably go for that as I don't really see the point of a metallic white, particularly as a cost option. At least Seat don't have the nerve to charge you for the solid white as VW and other manufacturers are now doing.
No, but they are charging 175 for the 'signature' Emocion Red which I think is a bit of a cheek!
I think these pictures will help you
![[B)]](/forums/styles/seatcupra/oldforumsmileys/shades.gif "Cool [B)]")
Front car (FR) is candy white.
Rear car (STYLE) is nevada white.
Last edited:
I've got an FR150 in Nevada White. Went for the metallic because when I was choosing my 10 plate FR, I wasn't keen on the Candy White (went for Luna Grey). The Nevada White then made it's way onto the later facelift models, and it was a lot whiter than than the existing non-metallic Candy White. Also, I thought metallic might be a slightly tougher finish - which was disproved on an A road that had just been resurfaced. Lets just say I can now grate cheese on the front of my car 
However, after ordering the FR150 - which was before they had reached these shores - I then saw an FR150 in 'normal' white at the dealers and was surprised at how white it was. I do like the Nevada White. It's a very bright white and looks quite classy, but you have to look quite hard to see the metallic flecks - unlike in Luna Grey, where it is really obvious. The flecks show up best in sunlight, but then it hurts your eyes trying to look at them!
Having seen the normal white now, I probably would have saved myself 450 notes and gone for non-metallic.
However, after ordering the FR150 - which was before they had reached these shores - I then saw an FR150 in 'normal' white at the dealers and was surprised at how white it was. I do like the Nevada White. It's a very bright white and looks quite classy, but you have to look quite hard to see the metallic flecks - unlike in Luna Grey, where it is really obvious. The flecks show up best in sunlight, but then it hurts your eyes trying to look at them!
Having seen the normal white now, I probably would have saved myself 450 notes and gone for non-metallic.
phsroberts
Guest
I have a white audi A6 and a white Leon, neither metallic. Unfortunately parked next to each other, the Leon is not as 'white' as the audi.
Similar threads
