Hell no, this isn't about which one will win a drag!

2004 Ferrari Maranello:

1) 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (hell, it's got 515 hp.)

2) Top speed: 202 mph

3) Weight: 3,815 lbs.

4) Cost: $225,000 (IF you can find one for that price)

5) Styling: "racy yet unobtrusive, a well bred beauty with
no need to shout" - Money Magazine, 12/03

1993 Mazda FD3S Touring:

1) 0-60 in 4.9 seconds

2) Top speed, 155 mph

3) Weight: 2,815 lbs. with me in the driver's seat AND a
skinny Italian Ho riding shotgun.

4) Cost: $35,920 in 1993 if you were stupid.

5) Styling: "Still makes heads swivel 11 years later, a
well bred beauty with no need to rice, WEIGHS
1,000 FREAKING POUNDS LESS! - Ron K. Miller, 12/03

Looks like the obesity epedemic has caught up with the exotics. Imagine the Maranello on a "Chin" (the designer of the FD3S) diet.

 

With the current safety standards that are mandated, and we have come to expect, there will not be any more cars under 3k lbs. I personally think it's a good thing. You can make up for the extra weight with extra HP, and you will be safe when using it.

 

ARRGHHHH!!! That's the American and Audi/Mercedes mindset.....

Yep, if all you are interested in is straightline performance, you are right. However, more weight hurts handling, ride quality, and braking. You can only overcome weight so far.

 

...take a look at the curb weight of the Elise.

 

Exactly, weight may not affect straight line performance with the added HP, but many other variables are sacrificed.

 

Doesn't anyone ever consider other peoples safety with HUGE cars? Yes you may be safer in a heavy car, but is it safer for the guy next to you that you have the largest SUV on the road? Just something to ponder.

 

Anyone recall "road hugging weight"?
c.a. 1950's...

 

I'm all for safety, but there's also this little thing called moment of inertia when you talk about extra weight, and it is NOT good for safety - ever. It is physics, pure and simple.

I would love to know what the lateral skidpad G's are on the Maranello. If you can AVOID an accident its all academic, and 1.00 G's are damned hard to beat on any production vehicle to date. (which is what the FD3S is rated at, according to Road and Track Magazine)

Curiously enough, the FD3S skidpad G's were practically identical to (it's .05 less) an F-40, an all out, ***** to the walls, "production" sports car, that currently retails for 1 Large - that's millions, not thousands.

 

A very thoughtful point, and weight is a big advantage in a crash.

My response: most American drivers are selfish pigs and could care less about anyone else's safety. It is the last thing in most car buyer's minds.

Think I'll go buy an Escalade tomorrow.

 

The other day we got rain and the roads were pretty slippery. I was on the highway minding my own business going about 75 when an overweight SUV (Navigator) tried to come into my lane and kill me... I moved to the right, and he saw me at the last moment and jerked hard back into his lane... he swung hard one way, then the other... and BARELY recovered it. He was in 3 lanes during this skillful (yeah right) display of driving ability. He almost caused a multiple car accident at high speed... morons.... I like a nice, light car!

 

I'll bet he's still glad he's driving his SAV - Suburban Assault Vehicle.

That's the bitch of driving a sports car - you have to mind everyone else's business as well.

 

For those of you who are overly concerned about your safety, it should be noted that your day and time were written in the book a long time ago. Until then, consider yourself bulletproof. Tom

 

Oh noes!

Not another "The RX-7 is better than ____ car because" thread.

*sigh*

 

Very interesting way to look at it.

 

I love my FD. If a guy with a Maranello wants to trade ................... OK I'll do it!!

 

Weight doesn't give saftey, properly engineered and designed saftey measures do. I would much rather get in an accident in my FD or in my toyota tundra, than in my 3/4 ton, 1953 chevy truck, and the '53 out wieghs both of them by alot.

I really hate hearing the weight=safety arguement, because all it's done has fueled the SUV and truck explosion. So you drive a ford exploder, when you get hit by the diesel powered ford excursion; you're probably going to get hurt. If you are in a ford exploder, and you hit an FD you might not get as hurt but you are more likely to hurt the driver in the FD. And to the people in the ford excursions; watch out for mack trucks.

Driving is not safe, huge, heavy, lumbering, vehicles only compound the problem.

 

HAHA!

SO IT IS WRITTEN.... SO IT SHALL COME TO PASS!

 

Your correct to a point. Weight does not = safety. But would you rather be in your FD or say an 80's Suburban in a head on collision? When the weight difference becomes big enough it doesn't really matter what type of safety engineering the smaller vehicle has. A very "safe" Civic will pretty much go under the front bumper of any big SUV. High speed video shows your head bouncing off the SUV hood in side impacts...

That old truck does not have one safety feature, solid steering column, hard dash and steering wheel, single circuit brakes, crush zone what is a crush zone.

Marenello vs. FD, LOL, I get it, not...

 

Jesus, this thread is getting strange, and now we've upset TwinTurboTeddy!

All I was trying to point out is what little progress in performance has been made in 11 years due to offsetting weight gains, and how much you get to pay for it.

The Porsche Cayenne also comes to mind. What a joke!
It fits right in with the Harley Davidson and Hummer crowd.

Kansei engineering has gone the way of the
Samurai. Well grasshoppers, all I can say is go fast before you're too old and can't. Peace.

 

A girl i once knew got hit by a old lifted pickup while driving her 97 prelude head on. tire marks where left on her hood, she is lucky she is still alive.

 

I can't wait until some squid broadsides me in my '88 1 ton Chevy R-30 dually full size crew cab with flatbed and fully exposed side mounted - outside of the frame rail - gas tanks. On both sides!

Talk about head bangin'!

 

I was just trying to make a point by using the old chevy. I agree with you, when I drive my work truck around -1987 Dodge 3/4 ton, 360ci, granny 4speed-(known at work as "the beast") I feel indestructable. Some high school age girl caught the fender of her parents new 4-runner on my back bumber in a parking lot, it badly damaged the 'yota, I had to buff some scratches out of the dodge's quarter panel.

But nevermind, this thread is digressing.

 

So this has become a safety thread??

Good grief guys, an idiot in a SUV is just as likely to kill him/herself as and idiot in an Elise. . .they just have the ability to kill a few more people also because the driver a) can't see a damn thing and b) could care less about anyone but themselves. The real question is "safer for whom."

BTW heavy solid frame vehicles (trucks and truck frame based vehicles) are more likely to kill their occupants than a smaller lighter vehicle) in a head on (or immovable object) crash than a smaller passenger vehicle. This is true because there is more inertial crash energy from the weight and fewer "designed in" crush zones to absorb that crash energy. Formula 1 race cars are designed to crush, break, fly apart upon impact to absorb the energy of the crash while the monocoque protects the driver.

 

Dodge Omni GLH-S
2.2 liter turbo
0-60 in 6.7 seconds
1/4 in 14.7 @ 94 mph

About $11,000 in the late 80's

 

When I replied, I wasn't trying to say that weight = safety. I was merely saying that, even if they remade the FD today, the saftey standards would require numerous safety additions to the car, and that would in turn add weight. Not saying that you are safer because it's heavier, but more that it's heavier because it's safer. I have an FD and an 03 G35 Coupe, and you can't beleive the safety features in that car. It's unreal that it is only 400lbs heavier, with all of the luxury, convienence, and safety features.