{"id":76591,"date":"2026-07-24T09:18:08","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T13:18:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/?p=76591"},"modified":"2026-07-24T09:19:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-24T13:19:31","slug":"sporty-car-design-and-the-illusion-of-speed-why-striking-looks-often-mask-underwhelming-performance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/sporty-car-design-and-the-illusion-of-speed-why-striking-looks-often-mask-underwhelming-performance\/","title":{"rendered":"Sporty Car Design and the Illusion of Speed Why Striking Looks Often Mask Underwhelming Performance"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why Do Visually Aggressive Cars Sometimes Underperform?<\/p>\n

The persistent allure of automotive design\u2014sharp lines, oversized spoilers, and sculpted air dams\u2014often seduces both enthusiasts and casual observers into assuming that a car\u2019s visual aggression signals commensurate performance. Yet, a recurring tension emerges: the evidence suggests that, across decades and continents, manufacturers have repeatedly paired evocative exteriors with powertrains that fail to deliver on the implied promise of speed. This phenomenon is not merely a matter of mismatched expectations; it reflects a deeper set of structural incentives, regulatory pressures, and market segmentation strategies that shape the automotive landscape.<\/p>\n

Automakers, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty or regulatory tightening, have frequently prioritized aesthetics to capture aspirational buyers\u2014those who desire the cachet of a sports car without the insurance premiums, fuel costs, or mechanical complexity of high-output engines. The result is a proliferation of models whose styling \u201cwrites cheques their engines can\u2019t always cash.\u201d This pattern is not accidental. It is a calculated response to consumer psychology and market constraints, one that continues to generate both commercial success and critical disappointment.<\/p>\n

How Do Regulatory and Economic Forces Shape Performance Shortfalls?<\/p>\n

A closer examination of the data reveals that underperformance is rarely a product of engineering oversight alone. Instead, it is often the predictable outcome of external pressures. For instance, the Ford Mustang King Cobra of the late 1970s and early 1980s, with its iconic silhouette and aggressive branding, was hobbled by the aftermath of the fuel crisis and tightening emissions standards. The available engines\u2014an 88bhp four-cylinder or a 105bhp V6\u2014produced acceleration figures (0-60mph in 13 seconds) that would have been unremarkable even for family sedans of the era. The Mustang\u2019s case is emblematic: regulatory regimes, especially in the US, have repeatedly forced manufacturers to prioritize compliance over outright performance.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the Lancia Scorpion\u2019s US variant, with a mere 81bhp due to emissions restrictions, underscores how legislative environments can transform a car\u2019s character. The European version, though still modest, offered a more spirited 120bhp. Such disparities are not simply technical footnotes; they are the product of structural constraints that shape the lived experience of drivers and the reputational fortunes of brands.<\/p>\n

Are There Hidden Virtues in Underpowered \u201cSporty\u201d Cars?<\/p>\n

While the mainstream narrative often frames these vehicles as disappointments, a more nuanced interpretation is warranted. The Toyota Celica, for example, despite a modest 143bhp output and a 0-62mph time of 9 seconds, was lauded for its handling\u2014earning recognition as the best-handling front-wheel-drive car on sale in 1999. The Mazda MX-5, similarly, has built a cult following not on straight-line speed (9.4 seconds to 62mph in its early iterations) but on its balance, steering feel, and accessibility.<\/p>\n

This suggests that, under specific conditions, the performance \u201cdeficit\u201d is less a flaw than a deliberate recalibration of priorities. Lightweight construction, communicative chassis, and affordable running costs can yield a driving experience that is rewarding in ways that raw acceleration figures do not capture. For some buyers, the absence of intimidating power is itself a virtue, democratizing the pleasures of sporty motoring.<\/p>\n

Who Is Most Affected by the Gap Between Looks and Performance?<\/p>\n

The consequences of this dynamic are not evenly distributed. Younger buyers, often constrained by insurance costs and licensing restrictions, are a primary target for visually aggressive but mechanically modest models such as the Hyundai Coupe or the Honda CR-Z. These cars offer the social capital of \u201csportiness\u201d without the financial or practical burdens of true high-performance vehicles.<\/p>\n

Conversely, enthusiasts and collectors\u2014those who value authenticity and mechanical pedigree\u2014may experience acute disappointment when a car\u2019s appearance outpaces its capabilities. The DeLorean DMC-12, immortalized in popular culture, is a case in point: its futuristic styling and gullwing doors promised supercar performance, yet its 130bhp V6 delivered a languid 0-62mph time of 10.5 seconds, undermining its long-term reputation among purists.<\/p>\n

What Are the Structural Limitations and Blind Spots in Mainstream Interpretations?<\/p>\n

Mainstream automotive commentary often treats the gap between appearance and performance as a simple matter of deception or marketing overreach. This interpretation, while not without merit, overlooks several critical factors. First, it fails to account for the heterogeneity of consumer preferences: not all buyers seek maximum speed, and many value style, comfort, or brand cachet above outright performance.<\/p>\n

Second, the focus on acceleration statistics as the sole metric of \u201csportiness\u201d obscures other dimensions of the driving experience\u2014handling, feedback, and emotional resonance\u2014that can be equally or more important. The Mazda RX-8, for instance, was criticized for its lack of torque and middling acceleration, yet its high-revving rotary engine and balanced chassis offered a unique, if polarizing, driving experience.<\/p>\n

Finally, there is a tendency to ignore the role of path dependency and legacy engineering decisions. The Volkswagen Karmann Ghia, for example, was constrained by its Beetle underpinnings, resulting in a 0-60mph time of 30 seconds despite its elegant design. Such compromises are often the result of platform sharing and cost containment, not mere indifference to performance.<\/p>\n

What Should an Informed Reader Conclude or Do?<\/p>\n

For the discerning observer, the lesson is not to dismiss visually aggressive but underpowered cars as mere pretenders. Rather, one should approach them with a critical appreciation for the interplay of design, regulation, economics, and consumer psychology that shapes their existence. When evaluating a prospective purchase or forming judgments about automotive history, it is essential to look beyond surface impressions and consider the broader context\u2014both the constraints and the opportunities\u2014that inform a car\u2019s final form.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the evidence suggests that the relationship between looks and performance is not a binary of authenticity versus fakery, but a spectrum shaped by competing priorities. In some cases, the gap is a source of frustration; in others, it is a gateway to accessible driving pleasure or a reflection of historical necessity. The informed reader, then, is best served by skepticism toward simplistic narratives and by a willingness to interrogate the deeper mechanisms at work\u2014whether as a consumer, critic, or enthusiast.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\"Sharp<\/a><\/p>\n

We take a look at the cars whose looks wrote cheques their engines couldn\u2019t always cash<\/p>\n

\n

Sharp styling, large spoilers and sculpted air dams will occasionally trick us into thinking a meatier engine lies underneath. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Looks can be deceiving and don’t always mean great acceleration or top speed. Here are some cars that we think look more meteoric <\/strong>than they are:<\/p>\n

\n

Toyota Celica<\/h2>\n

\"Toyota\n<\/p>\n

With its low-slung stance, small bonnet scoop and carved lines, the Celica started off in life with just 143bhp from its Yamaha-derived 1.8-litre VVT-I unit. It took 9 seconds <\/strong>to get to 62mph from rest, though would eventually make 127mph when possible. While it wasn\u2019t a drag racer, the Celica handled well and was even considered the best-handling front-wheel drive car on sale in 1999.<\/p>\n

\n

Mazda RX-8<\/h2>\n

\"Mazda\n<\/p>\n

Many people often expected the RX-8 to be a speed machine with its funky 2+2 layout, sporty bodywork and a special naturally aspirated high-revving 1.3-litre Wankel rotor engine – an evolution of the RX-7’s twin-turbocharged unit. The RX-8 landed with 189bhp but little torque – a characteristic of most rotaries –\u00a0 at 162lb ft, due to the lack of turbos, which meant 0-62mph in 7.5sec <\/strong>and a quarter-mile time of around 17sec.<\/p>\n

\n

Toyota GT86<\/h2>\n

\"Toyota\n<\/p>\n

When it arrived in 2012, the GT86 was praised for its lightweight body, rear-wheel drive and 50:50 weight distribution. It looked like a bona fide sports car with its aggressive front-led headlights, ground-hugging stance and swooping roofline. The 2.0-litre Boxer engine produced 197bhp, and 151lb ft, which had just 1239kg (2731lbs) to shove along but the GT86 would hit 62mph from rest in 7.7sec <\/strong>and top out at 137mph. However, those who opted for the automatic version would have to put up with a frankly pedestrian 0-62mph time of only 8.2sec<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Fisker Karma <\/h2>\n

\"Fisker\n<\/p>\n

The man who designed the BMW Z8 and Aston Martin Vantage, Henrik Fisker, gave us the striking Fisker Karma in 2011. Its bonnet was long, it was wider than a Ferrari 360 and its bodywork was sculpted like that of an Aston Martin Rapide, as though it was to fire on to 170mph-plus. However, underneath the makeup was a 260bhp 2.0-litre powerplant and two 201bhp electric motors powering the rear wheels. This meant, on battery power alone, the Karma would scuttle to 62mph in 8.0sec<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Ferrari Mondial<\/h2>\n

\"Ferrari\n<\/p>\n

In the 1980s, the world was gifted the legendary Ferrari Testarossa and the F40. The Mondial, launched in Geneva in 1980, did have all the Ferrari looks such as an iconic sloped front end, vents to cool the mid-mounted V8 and a supercar presence. Upon its release, 3.0-litre V8 produced just 214bhp (205bhp in US spec), which meant the Mondial slugged its way to 62mph from rest in 8.2sec, although some claims are closer to 10sec<\/strong>. Given enough room, it would hit 140mph, eventually<\/span>…<\/p>\n

\n

DeLorean DMC-12<\/h2>\n

\"DeLorean\n<\/p>\n

DMC-12 was intended to be lighter and a lot more powerful than the production version ended up being, as the firm had a difficult time finding a suitable engine. The prototype had a Ford Cologne V6 but was later swapped for a four-cylinder Citroen engine that was to be turbocharged.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Citroen didn\u2019t like the idea and asked DeLorean to go elsewhere, and they eventually settled on a 2.85-litre <\/strong>Peugeot V6. It looked like a supercar with its sleek bodywork and gullwing doors, but with a poor 130bhp, and it tipping the scales at 1230kg (2712lbs), the DMC-12 took a tedious 10.5sec <\/strong>to reach 62mph. The top speed was 130mph although other sources claimed only 105mph was achievable.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Honda CR-Z<\/h2>\n

\"Honda\n<\/p>\n

When Honda teased the CR-Z, it looked like the possibility of a classic CRX revival was on the cards. The sloped roof line, wide appearance and low centre of gravity were there, but unlike the CRX\u2019s 1.6-litre 8000rpm 160bhp VTEC engine, a 1.4-litre hybrid powertrain with a mere 122bhp was used for the CR-Z. While the CR-Z never offered straight-line thrills, Honda had given it a stiffer front-strut and rear torsion-beam suspension which made it more pleasurable on a B-road. 0-62mph arrived in a lethargic 10.0sec <\/strong>and it would crawl on to 118mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Hyundai Coupe<\/h2>\n

\"Hyundai\n<\/p>\n

The Coupe was handsome with its sleek and sporty profile and it became popular in 2005 when it received a facelift which saw new lights and tweaked bodywork. In base guise, Hyundai was targeting the younger market who perhaps wanted an attractive car without the large insurance premium but the 1.6-litre produced a trivial 103bhp which meant 0-62mph in 11.5sec <\/strong>and it would top out at a risible 115mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Ford Mustang King Cobra<\/h2>\n

\"Ford\n<\/p>\n

At the end of the fuel crisis in 1974, Ford decided to introduce a new Mustang that could balance both fuel economy and offer great drivability while keeping the traditional Mustang shape. This led to disappointing figures and owners could either buy it with an 88bhp 2.3-litre four-cylinder or a 105bhp 2.8-litre V6, rather than the 5.0-litre V8s of old. The V6 option meant that 0-60mph would arrive in a Peugeot 504-rivalling 13sec <\/strong>and it could barely hit 100mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Chevrolet Camaro<\/h2>\n

\"Chevrolet\n<\/p>\n

Previously, the Camaro was offered in either an inline-six or V6, alongside its V8 counterparts. When the third generation came in 1982, it received a 2.5-litre V6. These had supercar-inspired aerodynamic lines and wide muscle car bodywork, but with just 89bhp and 132lb ft from its 2.5-litre V6 engine, the Camaro walked to 62mph in 13.8sec<\/strong>. Top speed was just 106mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Hyundai Veloster<\/h2>\n

\"Hyundai\n<\/p>\n

Hyundai released the Veloster in 2012 to compete with the popular Volkswagen Scirocco. It had a quirky sloping coupe design with a three-door layout. And while the Veloster had very little body roll, a large amount of grip and great handling, this was ruined by the 1.6-litre which only fed 138bhp through the front wheels, seeing 62mph arrive in a lengthy 10sec <\/strong>from rest. Hyundai later released a more powerful turbo guise to make up for the base car’s poor performance.<\/p>\n

\n

Mitsubishi Eclipse Spider GS<\/h2>\n

\"Mitsubishi\n<\/p>\n

The Eclipse Spider wasn\u2019t as fast as its aerodynamic bodywork or low and wide stance suggested and being a convertible meant it had additional weight at 1589kg (3505lbs). This meant that the mere 147bhp that the 2.4-litre produced could only manage 0-62mph in 8.9sec <\/strong>and cover the quarter mile in 17sec. Those who opted for the automatic gearbox had to endure an even worse 10.4sec to 62mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Audi 100 Coupe S<\/h2>\n

\"Audi\n<\/p>\n

While it was elegant and its fastback-like design was attractive, the 100 Coupe S was powered by a 110bhp 1.9-litre four-cylinder that fed all power through the front wheels via a three-speed automatic gearbox. The 100 Coupe S looked prestige and more expensive than it really was with its sporty silhouette, four headlights, long bonnet and chrome trim. 0-62mph arrived in a leisurely 12.2sec <\/strong>while it would eventually reach 114mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Pontiac Fiero<\/h2>\n

\"Pontiac\n<\/p>\n

Its bodywork was Toyota MR-2-sharp and on paper the Fiero was considered fast; it was small, light and entertaining to drive with its mid-engined layout. Cars were also meant to get a high-revving 1.8-litre engine but due to costs, GM opted for a cheaper 93bhp 2.5-litre unit which gave it a high 11.0sec <\/strong>0-60mph time and a top speed of 105mph.<\/p>\n

Buyers could have the more muscular-sounding 2.8-litre V6 GT variant although this produced just 142bhp and still gave a disappointing 0-62mph time of 8.3sec.<\/p>\n

\n

Mazda MX-30<\/h2>\n

\"Mazda\n<\/p>\n

Electric cars usually offer a large dollop of torque in one go and give impressive acceleration. The MX-30 looked the part with its pushed-back cabin, low roofline and aggressive lights and grille, but the power output was a modest 143bhp and 199lb ft. In a car that weighs 1,645kg (3626lbs), this meant 0-62mph took an extensive 10.0sec<\/strong>, top speed was rather dull at 87mph, while range was just 124 miles<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Mazda MX-5<\/h2>\n

\"Mazda\n<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a choice for many when it comes to a budget sports car or a track day because of its superb handling, thanks to its 50:50 weight distribution, and sharp steering. Cars were, unfortunately, introduced with a naturally aspirated 114bhp which meant 62mph arrived in 9.4sec<\/strong> and Mazda released a 1.8-litre with just 14bhp more. 1.8-litre cars were favoured while 1.6-litre owners have been known to either supercharge or turbocharge their cars in a bid to combat the disappointing straight-line performance.<\/p>\n

\n

Volkswagen SP2<\/h2>\n

\"Volkswagen\n<\/p>\n

Brazil was starved of sports cars due to high import taxes and the country had its own called the Puma, based on a Beetle. Volkswagen then developed the SP2 in-house via their Brazilian division to give Brazil another sports car. Inside, it had leather seats and a low driving position, outside was a sleek steel body with cut-out rear vents and a long bonnet.<\/p>\n

Although it weighed just 890kg (1962lbs), the SP2 was heavier than the Puma and was powered by a 1.7-litre with a miniscule 75bhp. This resulted in a 95mph top speed and a slothful 0-62mph time of 17sec<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Mitsubishi FTO<\/h2>\n

\"Mitsubishi\n<\/p>\n

Unlike the desirable 197bhp 2.0-litre V6, the standard FTO\u2019s 1.8-litre produced just 125bhp. Outside, the FTO had all the features of a sports car: large 3000GT-like front lights, aerodynamic bodywork and a nifty spoiler. However, 0-60mph arrived in a lengthy 10.0sec <\/strong>and it would only see 125mph; the similarly priced Fiat Coupe 1.8-litre with 128bhp, although still slow, could manage the 0-62mph dash in just under 10sec and would go onto 128mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Porsche 924<\/h2>\n

\"Porsche\n<\/p>\n

Amongst the 944 and 968, the 924 was never meant to be a Porsche but was instead intended to be sold as either an Audi or a Volkswagen but Volkswagen killed the project. So, Porsche bought the rights. For some reason, the 924 was equipped with Volkswagen\u2019s 123bhp 2.0-litre van-derived unit which meant a lazy real-world 0-62mph time of 11.0sec <\/strong>and it would eventually hit 124mph if given enough room.<\/p>\n

\n

Lancia Scorpion<\/h2>\n

\"Lancia\n<\/p>\n

What was originally designed for Fiat, ended up with Lancia. The Montecarlo was for Europe and received a punchy 120bhp variant while the US was given the Scorpion which had a 1.8-litre with just 81bhp due to emission laws. The European car would still struggle to scamper to 62mph in under 9sec <\/strong>while the US car took an even lengthier 13.4sec<\/strong>. Its front was attractive with a long bonnet and aggressive lights, while X1\/9 hints were at the rear \u2013 the Scorpion was designated originally as an X1\/8.<\/p>\n

\n

Smart Roadster<\/h2>\n

\"Smart\n<\/p>\n

Smart isn\u2019t known to build sports cars, but being under Mercedes\u2019 umbrella, they have been known to release Brabus variants of their for-two and for-four models. In 2003, the quirky 790kg<\/strong> (1741lbs) Coupe hit the streets with its rear glass panel, low-slung driving position and 698cc turbocharged engine.<\/p>\n

While the Coupe was chuckable, the 80bhp engine was tied to a lazy three-speed semi-automatic gearbox which meant a 0-62mph time of just over 11sec<\/strong>. A Brabus variant was later introduced which upped the power to 101bhp, but with no manual gearbox available, it was still slow with its 10sec 0-62mph time.<\/p>\n

\n

Fiat X1\/9<\/h2>\n

\"Fiat\n<\/p>\n

The X1\/9 looked quick with its flat Ferrari-like boot lid, carved front end and side-mounted engine ducts but underneath was a 1.3-litre four-cylinder with a puny 75bhp which pushed the 880kg (1940lbs) X1\/9 to 62mph in a torpid 12.8sec<\/strong>. Fiat later revisited the X1\/9 and equipped it with a more powerful 84bhp 1.5-litre but this didn\u2019t massively improve its performance as 0-62mph took 11.5sec and gave a top speed of just 112mph.<\/p>\n

\n

Porsche 914<\/h2>\n

\"Porsche\n<\/p>\n

Volkswagen wanted to build a halo car and Porsche needed a car to replace its 912, and in a joint venture, the 914 was conceived. Its design looked aerodynamic with its pop-up headlights, raised wheel arches and ground-hugging suspension. Behind the driver sat a 1.7-litre Volkswagen-derived powerplant with a mere 80bhp, shoving the 914 to 62mph in an unenergetic 13.3sec <\/strong>and it would even struggle to reach its 115mph top speed.<\/p>\n

\n

Renault Caravelle <\/h2>\n

\"Renault\n<\/p>\n

The Caravelle was the late-\u201850s response by Renault to try and seize on two apparent opportunities: ape the success of the Volkswagen Beetle (and its associate, the Karmann Ghia) in the American market, and also get a slug of the sales then captured by mostly British-built roadsters in the same market. The low slung and reasonably slinky Caravelle was the response.<\/p>\n

With a design by Ghia and based on the floorplan of the rear-engined Dauphine, it never had the motor to deliver on especially the latter objective; its 845cc engine was only good for 37bhp<\/strong>, while even the performance version only put out 40bhp. Even the latter took over 22 seconds <\/strong>to get to 60mph, while 78mph was its top speed. This did nothing for its appeal to American motorists, used to much more powerful cars, at a time when rival Volkswagens w<\/span>ere regularly introducing more powerful engines.<\/p>\n

\n

Volkswagen Karmann Ghia (1955)<\/h2>\n

\"Volkswagen\n<\/p>\n

With the Beetle selling like hot cakes, VW finally had the resources to do more than just survive \u2013 but also to thrive at all. With incomes rising after the austerity of the war and immediate post-war years, people had money to spend on cars that were more just mere tools. The Karmann Ghia was a result, with sporty and modern styling from Ghia.<\/p>\n

However, deep down it was a Beetle, and that means sharing that car\u2019s often rather lethargic engines; initially that meant an air-cooled 1.2-litre flat-four good for just 34bhp and a 0-60mph time of a cool 30 seconds<\/strong>. Still it looked great, acquired a cult status that stands today, \u00a0and VW sold them by the bucketload \u2013 there were 445,000 sales over a 19 year period, 81% of which were couples, the remained being convertibles.<\/p>\n

\n

Volvo P1800 (1961)<\/h2>\n

\"Volvo\n<\/p>\n

It wasn\u2019t just the likes of Renault who wanted a piece of the compact sports car market \u2013 even stodgy old Volvo wanted a piece of the action, and the sensuously beautiful P1800 was the result. But it received a four-cylinder engine more usually at home in the Swedish firm\u2019s staid saloons and station wagons, and good initially for only 100bhp, a 0-60mph time of 13 seconds <\/strong>and a 105mph top speed. It did later receive more powerful engines \u2013 and also got small-screen stardom as the wheels of Simon Templar<\/strong> in The Saint, as portrayed by Roger Moore, later a James Bond.<\/p>\n

\n

Nova <\/h2>\n

\"Nova\n<\/p>\n

The Nova was a stunning-looking machine that rather astonishingly was firstly built largely by its owners \u2013 there were various tax breaks in the Nova’s 70s heyday for \u2018kit cars\u2019 in the UK \u2013 and secondly was essentially a rather more pedestrian VW Beetle underneath. Its canopy opened dramatically (via a hydraulic pump), combining roof and doors in one \u2013 and the uninitiated might have thought you were looking at a Ferrari-rival.<\/p>\n

Although lighter than its donor, it still featured its engines and usually delivered decidedly Beetle-like performance \u2013 complete with treacherous handling inherent from placing a relatively heavy engine right at the back of a lightweight plastic-bodyworked and low slung car.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":76592,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-featured","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76591"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76591\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76593,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76591\/revisions\/76593"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/76592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvillagespace.com\/tech\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}