Does 500 rwhp make an FD more enjoyable to drive? (13b only)
11-24-10, 04:57 PM
#501
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few comments on the M600 from actual GT-R owners 
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/127365-noble-m600.html
now THAT....that is a sports car, folks
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/127365-noble-m600.html
Given that it’s hand-built in small premises on the outskirts of Leicester, by a team of fewer than 20 people, this does sound like an awful lot of money for a car that few people will ever recognise. But if we tell you that during the course of this road test the M600 went faster than a McLaren F1 in almost every in-gear increment from 20-160mph, you might begin to understand what sort of performance the M600 has at its disposal.
Because in the end it is its raw, brain-mangling performance that defines the M600. Not just in a straight line but also around corners, under brakes, during acceleration, everywhere and anywhere. What we are talking about is one of the fastest cars that has ever been built for use on the public road, in light of which £200k no longer seems quite so crazy.
As with all previous Nobles, the M600 uses a mid-engined spaceframe steel chassis with double wishbones at each corner and coil-over dampers for its primary suspension. But that’s where the similarity between this Noble and those that have gone before ends.
For although the M600 may appear quite similar in concept to the stillborn M15, beneath its heavily restyled skin it is a significantly more exotic machine, featuring hand-made materials and construction techniques that no M12 driver could ever have dreamed about (or afforded).
Using carbonfibre for all the key body parts, the production car weighs just 1250kg. At the heart of the M600 is a twin-turbo 4.4-litre V8 engine, originally designed by Yamaha for use in Ford’s now-defunct Premier Automotive Group. Thanks to some final development work by American engine specialist Motorkraft (including the addition of two Garrett turbochargers), the M600’s engine produces 650bhp at 6800rpm and a thumping 604lb ft at 3800rpm. By contrast, the legendary 6.1-litre BMW V12 engine in the McLaren F1 produced 627bhp and 479lb ft.
At each corner the M600 uses steel brakes with six-pot calipers at the front and four at the rear, designed by British braking specialist Alcon. Controversially, there is no anti-lock system, Noble claiming that high-effort brake feel would be compromised by the fitment of ABS.
But there is, thankfully, a traction control system (although it wasn’t functioning on our test car), which can be further tailored by a switch that reduces power to 550 or 450bhp.
There are so many adjectives that can be used to describe the M600’s astounding performance (there’s one for starters) that it would be easy to get completely carried away. So instead we’re going to let the numbers do most of the talking, specifically those relating to its in-gear performance.
Take, for example, what it can do in fourth gear, and from as little as 40mph. In most supercars you need to wind many more revs into the crank before anything interesting happens, but in the M600 the afterburners ? ? are already ablaze from as little as 2000rpm. Which is why it takes just 2.2sec to go from 40-60mph in cog four, whereas even in a McLaren F1, which has no turbochargers to spin up, remember, it takes 2.3sec.
Because in the end it is its raw, brain-mangling performance that defines the M600. Not just in a straight line but also around corners, under brakes, during acceleration, everywhere and anywhere. What we are talking about is one of the fastest cars that has ever been built for use on the public road, in light of which £200k no longer seems quite so crazy.
As with all previous Nobles, the M600 uses a mid-engined spaceframe steel chassis with double wishbones at each corner and coil-over dampers for its primary suspension. But that’s where the similarity between this Noble and those that have gone before ends.
For although the M600 may appear quite similar in concept to the stillborn M15, beneath its heavily restyled skin it is a significantly more exotic machine, featuring hand-made materials and construction techniques that no M12 driver could ever have dreamed about (or afforded).
Using carbonfibre for all the key body parts, the production car weighs just 1250kg. At the heart of the M600 is a twin-turbo 4.4-litre V8 engine, originally designed by Yamaha for use in Ford’s now-defunct Premier Automotive Group. Thanks to some final development work by American engine specialist Motorkraft (including the addition of two Garrett turbochargers), the M600’s engine produces 650bhp at 6800rpm and a thumping 604lb ft at 3800rpm. By contrast, the legendary 6.1-litre BMW V12 engine in the McLaren F1 produced 627bhp and 479lb ft.
At each corner the M600 uses steel brakes with six-pot calipers at the front and four at the rear, designed by British braking specialist Alcon. Controversially, there is no anti-lock system, Noble claiming that high-effort brake feel would be compromised by the fitment of ABS.
But there is, thankfully, a traction control system (although it wasn’t functioning on our test car), which can be further tailored by a switch that reduces power to 550 or 450bhp.
There are so many adjectives that can be used to describe the M600’s astounding performance (there’s one for starters) that it would be easy to get completely carried away. So instead we’re going to let the numbers do most of the talking, specifically those relating to its in-gear performance.
Take, for example, what it can do in fourth gear, and from as little as 40mph. In most supercars you need to wind many more revs into the crank before anything interesting happens, but in the M600 the afterburners ? ? are already ablaze from as little as 2000rpm. Which is why it takes just 2.2sec to go from 40-60mph in cog four, whereas even in a McLaren F1, which has no turbochargers to spin up, remember, it takes 2.3sec.
Last edited by no_more_rice; 11-24-10 at 05:02 PM.
11-24-10, 05:07 PM
#502
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
From what I could gather the GTR boys are calling it over priced and I'd agree. I'll take an e90 for my daily, a GT3 RS equipped with lots of goodies for my HPDE car then prep my FD for racing and probably still have some change left over.
I would agree that's sports car to the hilt but a cup car or ACR or......in other words at 200k plus your options will exceed what that car can offer IMO.
I would agree that's sports car to the hilt but a cup car or ACR or......in other words at 200k plus your options will exceed what that car can offer IMO.
11-24-10, 05:13 PM
#503
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: fort worth
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mind games
How great is it to own a RX7,in my humble opinion, gen 3. I have had the same one now for fifteen years. Does 500 hp make it better?
Only if that is where you want to take it. And that is the beauty of our little car. While other autos also have the same options for chamelion like changes none of them are as beautiful are as so rotary.
A person could go crazy learning the hows and whys of so many things about this vehicle. If you want 500 hp go for it.
Enough time has passed and enough mods have been done that the 500 hp club might be joined by the original as hell club.
Satisfying to both just as long as they enjoy thier own mind games.
Only if that is where you want to take it. And that is the beauty of our little car. While other autos also have the same options for chamelion like changes none of them are as beautiful are as so rotary.
A person could go crazy learning the hows and whys of so many things about this vehicle. If you want 500 hp go for it.
Enough time has passed and enough mods have been done that the 500 hp club might be joined by the original as hell club.
Satisfying to both just as long as they enjoy thier own mind games.
11-24-10, 05:23 PM
#504
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, go against the herd, think outside the bubble of what everyone else is doing.
11-24-10, 06:41 PM
#506
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
I agree as well, but this is a small company trying to cover a ton of R&D, with a limited number of sales. Imagine if one of the major manufacturers got serious about producing a true track worthy car like this instead of the barcaloungers they're producing now. This thing would absolutely shred a GT-R to the point of being laughable.
Again, go against the herd, think outside the bubble of what everyone else is doing.
Again, go against the herd, think outside the bubble of what everyone else is doing.
The porsche GT3 RS with a 3.9 and some other mods would also be a very cool car to fool with.
Lotus in general is doing what mosler is doing only with less power etc....
IMO we are probably living in the best of times for the automobile in general since the model T or the beginning of it all so we should definitely enjoy it while it last. Also with that said I sincerely believe that the owners of this car are enjoying one of the great ones so lets all be thankful for our cherished FD. The reality is most of us FD nuts aren't going to be satisfied with any other car because this is a car that grabs you and possesses your soul like no other car can.
11-24-10, 07:29 PM
#507
Since we're so off topic, if the RX7 continued on the same development path as the Porsche 911 starting in 1993, I think Mazda would have caved into consumer market forces and developed out the "snap-oversteer" so still ver prevalent in Porsche 993, but fairly tame in the 996. And then Mazda would have a variable geometry twin turbo, a la' the 997. Compression MIGHT go up, and tranny's and diff's would have every alphabet soup elctronic gizmo out there. Heck, there might have even been a 4-wheel system!
So if the 2010 RX7 FF was produced with this "consumerized" add-ons, I'm sure it would a great dual-purpose (daily/track) car even with 500RWHP.
:-) neil
So if the 2010 RX7 FF was produced with this "consumerized" add-ons, I'm sure it would a great dual-purpose (daily/track) car even with 500RWHP.
:-) neil
11-24-10, 10:35 PM
#508
Ski Freak
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as a lot of vets are in this thread, I'd like to ask a quick question (which probably won't derail the thread any further than it has gone already). What would be the best amount of rwhp for a 13b to keep a car decently streetable yet keep in check with lets say C6s? I'm thinking in the low 400s. Like 425. I'd love to hear from you guys though!
11-24-10, 11:53 PM
#509
Doritos on a toothpick
Seeing as a lot of vets are in this thread, I'd like to ask a quick question (which probably won't derail the thread any further than it has gone already). What would be the best amount of rwhp for a 13b to keep a car decently streetable yet keep in check with lets say C6s? I'm thinking in the low 400s. Like 425. I'd love to hear from you guys though!
....This is all with the assumption that you are making power under the curve...and not just up top...
11-25-10, 02:19 AM
#510
Seeing as a lot of vets are in this thread, I'd like to ask a quick question (which probably won't derail the thread any further than it has gone already). What would be the best amount of rwhp for a 13b to keep a car decently streetable yet keep in check with lets say C6s? I'm thinking in the low 400s. Like 425. I'd love to hear from you guys though!
Depends on the driver
11-25-10, 06:55 AM
#511
I did think about M3. The new ones are pretty nice and I see 2-3 in my garage. I guess when time comes I'll think about those too.
11-25-10, 12:15 PM
#512
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
Seeing as a lot of vets are in this thread, I'd like to ask a quick question (which probably won't derail the thread any further than it has gone already). What would be the best amount of rwhp for a 13b to keep a car decently streetable yet keep in check with lets say C6s? I'm thinking in the low 400s. Like 425. I'd love to hear from you guys though!
They weigh about 3180 so lets be conservative and call it 3100.
3100/450=6.89
Typical track modded single turbo FD making 400 and weighing 2700lbs with good wing, brakes and coilovers w/ 285 to 315 size tires is ALL (hehe) you need to stump it.
2700/400=6.75
The weight and handling will easily overcome the torque.
With that said though the Z is easy to mod. A cam, exhaust, intake and flash get you to 550 rwhp easy and that will leave any FD pretty much wanting it's own LSX or 3 rotor etc....
There's a Z running in TTU with basic bolt ons a wing and some fat slicks that's running much lower lap times than me (by 3 to 4 seconds) and I'm at 2650/330. A well driven Z is a beast on a road course, autox or anywhere. If you want a new car that goes fast cheap it's absolutely unbeatable. I've seen cars with under 20k miles selling for under 40k
I'm always curious why guys that go crazy with LSX swaps don't just buy a C6 Z. Once you gut it, drop in a cage, coilovers etc...I think it would be a fun car to drive. Not in the same vein as the FD or GT3 but close and probably much easier to deal with than either the P or FD.
11-25-10, 12:52 PM
#513
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little education on that matter is in order (I've posted this several times in the kills section, but you still see the same power-to-weight argument parroted again and again for high speed roll-on contests, then people wonder why they get spanked by high hp Supras, for example)
Road load horsepower is the power required for a vehicle to maintain a constant speed on a level road. It is the sum of the powers required to overcome the car's rolling resistance, and aerodynamic drag.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance includes power train losses, wheel bearing losses, and power losses in the tires. Of the three, tire rolling resistance is the greatest, and so dominant that the other losses may be disregarded for first-order approximations.
The force of tire rolling resistance in radial-ply tires for passenger cars tend to be about 1.2% of the car's weight at 30 mph (48 km/h), increasing to about 1.6% at 70 mph (113 km/h), when properly inflated. For a 3000 pound car these equate to roughly 35 and 50 pounds of force at 30 and 70 mph, respectively. Under inflation or excessive weight increase tire rolling resistance considerably.
Aerodynamic Drag
The force of aerodynamic drag is a function of a car's shape (Coefficient of Drag), size (frontal area), the square of it's speed, and (to a minor extent) its altitude. For a mid-size sedan this equates to about 20 and 90 pounds of force at 30 and 70 mph, respectively.
Modern cars have drag coefficients (Cd) ranging from 0.30 to 0.50 (with pickups and SUV's being somewhat higher). To give some idea of what these number mean, here are typical Cd's for some other objects: an airfoil, 0.05; a ball, 0.10; a narrow (30°) cone, 0.34; a wide (60°) cone, 0.51; a square flat plate, 1.17; a parachute, 1.35.
Road Load Horsepower
Horsepower is a measurement of a force applied at a speed. Both rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag are calculated in terms of force. At any chosen speed, these forces can be resolved into horsepower requirements. If the car can supply that amount of power to the wheels, then it can maintain that speed. Total road load horsepower for a typical mid-size sedan is about 15 hp (11 kW) at 50 mph (80km/h).
Since rolling resistance force is not a function of speed, then rolling resistance horsepower (a function of speed) increases proportionally with speed. Since aerodynamic drag force is proportional to the square of the car's speed, then aerodynamic drag horsepower increases proportionally to the cube of the car's road speed.
It is generally accepted that, on a typical car, its rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag become equal at about 50 mph. So at twice that speed the aerodynamic drag is about 4 times the rolling resistance
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance includes power train losses, wheel bearing losses, and power losses in the tires. Of the three, tire rolling resistance is the greatest, and so dominant that the other losses may be disregarded for first-order approximations.
The force of tire rolling resistance in radial-ply tires for passenger cars tend to be about 1.2% of the car's weight at 30 mph (48 km/h), increasing to about 1.6% at 70 mph (113 km/h), when properly inflated. For a 3000 pound car these equate to roughly 35 and 50 pounds of force at 30 and 70 mph, respectively. Under inflation or excessive weight increase tire rolling resistance considerably.
Aerodynamic Drag
The force of aerodynamic drag is a function of a car's shape (Coefficient of Drag), size (frontal area), the square of it's speed, and (to a minor extent) its altitude. For a mid-size sedan this equates to about 20 and 90 pounds of force at 30 and 70 mph, respectively.
Modern cars have drag coefficients (Cd) ranging from 0.30 to 0.50 (with pickups and SUV's being somewhat higher). To give some idea of what these number mean, here are typical Cd's for some other objects: an airfoil, 0.05; a ball, 0.10; a narrow (30°) cone, 0.34; a wide (60°) cone, 0.51; a square flat plate, 1.17; a parachute, 1.35.
Road Load Horsepower
Horsepower is a measurement of a force applied at a speed. Both rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag are calculated in terms of force. At any chosen speed, these forces can be resolved into horsepower requirements. If the car can supply that amount of power to the wheels, then it can maintain that speed. Total road load horsepower for a typical mid-size sedan is about 15 hp (11 kW) at 50 mph (80km/h).
Since rolling resistance force is not a function of speed, then rolling resistance horsepower (a function of speed) increases proportionally with speed. Since aerodynamic drag force is proportional to the square of the car's speed, then aerodynamic drag horsepower increases proportionally to the cube of the car's road speed.
It is generally accepted that, on a typical car, its rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag become equal at about 50 mph. So at twice that speed the aerodynamic drag is about 4 times the rolling resistance
11-25-10, 01:43 PM
#514
I haven't read all the posts but you guys have been talking about different criterias to one another like value for money, kit cars, borrowed parts, power potential, handling, track driving, power to weight, engine placement, uniqueness etc.
So if this car wasn't mentioned before it may be an interesting addition to the discussion. It's a GTR but a different type of GTR. Someone in the forum was planning to do a 3rotor or a 4rotor version long time ago iirc.
http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Content.aspx?f=gtrintro
http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Video.aspx?f=gtrvideo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKX2KZruc3E
So if this car wasn't mentioned before it may be an interesting addition to the discussion. It's a GTR but a different type of GTR. Someone in the forum was planning to do a 3rotor or a 4rotor version long time ago iirc.
http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Content.aspx?f=gtrintro
http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Video.aspx?f=gtrvideo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKX2KZruc3E
11-25-10, 02:11 PM
#515
Ski Freak
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to clarify the parameters of the race. I assume this is street racing. Most "street encounters" are freeway rolls, and in that situation, it's not a easy as a simplistic power-to-weight ratios as cited by Fritz. There are many factors that come into play at speed: tire size, Cd, etc. At higher speeds (especially as you near 100 mph and above), horsepower and aerodynamics dominate the equation.
11-25-10, 04:24 PM
#516
Super Snuggles
Nice to see nothing ever changes on this forum. Happy Thanksgiving!
11-25-10, 05:08 PM
#517
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
Because the vast majority can't afford a C6 Z06 outright. Even a low priced C6 Z costs $35k or more, but an FD rolling chassis costs almost nothing these days and so do GTO LS2 pull-outs. Then you get out your credit cards and start bragging!
Nice to see nothing ever changes on this forum. Happy Thanksgiving!
Nice to see nothing ever changes on this forum. Happy Thanksgiving!
No doubt those are the folks that buy a junk roller, a GT0 long block and after rattling off to the market to get lottery tickets a few times with what little spare change they have left in their pockets sell the car for 15k loosing 5.
Thanks for the visit I miss you more than anyone that's moved on from this forum.
Did you ever get your car up and running and what are you running around in these days for fun?
11-25-10, 08:35 PM
#518
Weird Cat Man
I do have Tein HA coilovers and CCW 17x10 with correct offset.
11-25-10, 09:07 PM
#519
11-26-10, 08:13 AM
#520
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
You can squeeze 295 out back with proper camber, a fender roll and some thin aftermarket trailing arms anything above than you'll need some more advanced fender work.
Like Rich said 285s 30 18s are fine up front with a plus 50 but again anything bigger like 315 will take some fender work and a more agressive offset.
11-26-10, 01:11 PM
#521
dorito powered
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the vast majority can't afford a C6 Z06 outright. Even a low priced C6 Z costs $35k or more, but an FD rolling chassis costs almost nothing these days and so do GTO LS2 pull-outs. Then you get out your credit cards and start bragging!
Nice to see nothing ever changes on this forum. Happy Thanksgiving!
Nice to see nothing ever changes on this forum. Happy Thanksgiving!
still wish I could go back and read the complete saga that was deleted when that other forum shut down.
anyways, I've been absent a few days and would like to say a few things.
In regards to whoever said that if a car doesn't use a motor that the company making the car produces it's basically a kit car, what about the lotus elise? toyota motor. What about the pagani zonda? mercedes motor. McLaren F1, BMW motor. Sure they're extreme examples, but they're definitely NOT kit cars, and neither are nobles, anymore.
I would love a 997 gt3 rs, when I first saw one in that lime green and black paint scheme something happened, it is one of the most striking cars I have ever seen.
there are too many definitions for sports car, supercar, grand tourer etc. I'm pretty sure my definition of a supercar is different from most. I don't call a car a supercar just because it meets most people's criteria for supercars. IMO a 997 gt2 is not a super car, nor is a zr1 or a new gt-r, they are super cars, but not true supercars based on their humbler origins (although the gt-r does blur the lines somewhat, it is hampered by the price and availability). There is a sense of herritage and prestige that comes with supercars. A supercar in my opinion is something like a ford gt, ferrari 430, or a lamborghini gallardo. The space between super and car is the defining thing for me. Yes there are cars that are absolutely fenomenal and do everything that they were built to do and excel, but oftentimes there is something missing that elevates cars to supercar status. I just don't think a 911, a corvette, or even a noble (despite its supercar price) can ever really be a supercar. They are stuck, at least for the time being, as super cars.
just my opinion.
and no, a car does not have to be stellar around a track to be considered a sports car. I don't think any of us would disagree that in stock form a camaro or 350z is a real track star, but they are sports cars.
m3s are fantastic cars, I've had the plesure of driving e30, e36, and e46 variants and hope to be able to autocross the last two this coming summer. They simply lack the power that is almost needed to satisfy us rx7 owners, a problem that seems to have been corrected with the e90.
I think I covered everything that I wanted to cover as I read the last 3 or 4 pages. Happy start to the Holidays everyone. Hopefully nobody ate too much that it dampens their track performance.
11-26-10, 03:25 PM
#522
those examples of top end sports cars with various motor configurations ARE kit cars, they are just very expensive kit cars with alot of R+D... even though the engines are modded they were not originally built for the cars that they are in. saying they're not is like saying i can take a modified 13BREW and drop it into a home built tube chassis race car frame with fiberglass body and saying it's not a kit car while making more than one of them, just because i pasted my shops name over the mazda logos on the motor. it doesn't matter how much i modify the engine, it is still mazda powered. whenever i see those cars i always think that they are a split between custom made and powered by mercedes/BMW/etc, calling it anything else is like saying those companies didn't have any hand in making the car at all.
the term "kit car" can have many meanings, most just don't think of them as kit cars because the term generally has a cheap meaning because for the most part it originates from people who build wannabe ferraris and lambos off of camaro/fiero groundwork. how about we just call them "specialty kit cars" to separate the field. they are custom made frames/bodies with pre-manufactured mass produced drivetrains- so what is different about them than any other kit car in the world? a price tag of $100,000-$1,000,000 more is all.
the term "kit car" can have many meanings, most just don't think of them as kit cars because the term generally has a cheap meaning because for the most part it originates from people who build wannabe ferraris and lambos off of camaro/fiero groundwork. how about we just call them "specialty kit cars" to separate the field. they are custom made frames/bodies with pre-manufactured mass produced drivetrains- so what is different about them than any other kit car in the world? a price tag of $100,000-$1,000,000 more is all.
11-26-10, 04:42 PM
#523
dorito powered
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gordon, now that I think about it pedigree isn't exactly the right word for it. What I usually stress when making my arguement for my definition of supercar vs super car is that with the ford gt, you have something unique and special different from everything else on the road. the problem with the porsche gt2 rs or similar top-model porsche as with the zr1, is that 99% of the population won't be able to recognize the difference between your top model, and the base 911 or base corvette, but EVERYONE and their dog recognizes the GT as something unique and special. Luxury is not required to play at the supercar level as something such as the caparo t1 or the gumpert apollo demonstrates. There are the occasional cases where cars are able to blur the lines and I think I will henceforth call them super-cars as they're a step above a super car, but not quite a supercar by my definition. I think two great examples are the nissan gt-r and the honda nsx, despite them being from humbler origins, they are almost always recognized as something unique and special.
my main argument is simply that everyone defines these terms diferently, I was merely adding my definition to the pile.
Karack I understand your point but I disagree, a zonda, a lotus, a mclaren, and a newer noble are not kit cars in my opinion.
my main argument is simply that everyone defines these terms diferently, I was merely adding my definition to the pile.
Karack I understand your point but I disagree, a zonda, a lotus, a mclaren, and a newer noble are not kit cars in my opinion.
11-26-10, 06:27 PM
#524
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
Phil... Did you say you see 2-3 M3's in your garage? Huh? I think the train pulled out without me. I know you have a few FD's, but didn't know you had a habit of buying 2 or 3 of whatever cars you had. Is it because you like to try different themes? I have thought about a second FD more toward a track car, but still haven't done even that.
It is interesting that the cars we talk about in somewhat longing comparison with our FD's are pretty much M3's, GTR's and GT3's... Not Astons, Ferraris, Mercedes, or Alfas. We all mention the Vettes as best for money and good track fun, but lust seems reserved for a very small list of basically 3 cars. I can get up some genuine lust for the GT3 and can appreciate how others would lust for the other two.
Since a bit of this thread is about other cars we lust for, I would add the Aston Vantage as a car I lust after. I would probably prefer an Aston Vantage V8 to a GT3. I have read many articles in the British magazines comparing the Vantage with various Porsches. The thing is that stock-for-stock, the GT3 was a tad better than the first engined Vantage on the track and that was it. The newer 420 hp (AT 7300 RPM!!!) 4.7 liter Vantage would have been heads up or better with the Porsches 997 series in the earlier comparisons I cited. (I had originally told Aston and Henrik Fisker, having been given an inside look at the car before it was introduced, hat the motor needed 400+ hp to start and they didn't want to stress the 4.3 motor to there.)
Anyway, as these articles also said and is obvious from a look, the Aston is a beautiful car. A bit heavy-ish, I admit, at 3600 pounds, but, for me, the looks and engine make up for a lot. Does a high 12's quarter and tops 175-180, so it has sufficient power. I would also add that the interior fit, finish, and materials are in a class by themselves, which, as many of you know, is important to me. (I really like cars whose materials and fit and finish mean they will not only still be great mechanically after 30 years, but that their parts will age and have a "patina" rather than be faded, cracked, or replaced with NOS plastic.)
Car has a 6 speed transaxle gearbox connected by an alloy torque tube like our powerframe. Its mid-front-engined, like the FD with the rack well in front of the engine and 50-50 weight distribution. The motor vette or nascar or BMW v8 motors seem primitive in comparison. (They offer a v12, but its hardly necessary except for the sound and power being a big notch up with the attendant increase in weight, heat, and price. You could easily tweak the stock v8 to 475-500 flywheel hp.) Its only 3 inches longer and 2 inches higher than the FD. More in GT3 size territory. Here's a few videos...
First a good Aussie video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUKn...eature=related
Then, a Top Gear drooling on the v12...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XhMDwSlfyo
So, at about $50-65,000 used, I think these are a great car that I have on my shortest list. I love the GT3's handling, love the motor even more, like the return to a more 911-looking body, but, ultimately, that body and familiarity probably put me off combined with an interior that does nothing other than reinforce the track orientation of the car at the expense of nicer surroundings, better design, and better materials. For me, the Vantage appeals very much like the FD does. Its a very beautiful car that is also very fast and quite advanced technically what with the bonded aluminum chassis with some extraordinary torsional rigidity, front mid-engine, Graziano 6 speed rear transaxle, torque tube, and all. Plus, the interior design of the Vantage is probably the nicest interior in the sports car and supercar or luxury car market world right now, baring none.
Gordon
It is interesting that the cars we talk about in somewhat longing comparison with our FD's are pretty much M3's, GTR's and GT3's... Not Astons, Ferraris, Mercedes, or Alfas. We all mention the Vettes as best for money and good track fun, but lust seems reserved for a very small list of basically 3 cars. I can get up some genuine lust for the GT3 and can appreciate how others would lust for the other two.
Since a bit of this thread is about other cars we lust for, I would add the Aston Vantage as a car I lust after. I would probably prefer an Aston Vantage V8 to a GT3. I have read many articles in the British magazines comparing the Vantage with various Porsches. The thing is that stock-for-stock, the GT3 was a tad better than the first engined Vantage on the track and that was it. The newer 420 hp (AT 7300 RPM!!!) 4.7 liter Vantage would have been heads up or better with the Porsches 997 series in the earlier comparisons I cited. (I had originally told Aston and Henrik Fisker, having been given an inside look at the car before it was introduced, hat the motor needed 400+ hp to start and they didn't want to stress the 4.3 motor to there.)
Anyway, as these articles also said and is obvious from a look, the Aston is a beautiful car. A bit heavy-ish, I admit, at 3600 pounds, but, for me, the looks and engine make up for a lot. Does a high 12's quarter and tops 175-180, so it has sufficient power. I would also add that the interior fit, finish, and materials are in a class by themselves, which, as many of you know, is important to me. (I really like cars whose materials and fit and finish mean they will not only still be great mechanically after 30 years, but that their parts will age and have a "patina" rather than be faded, cracked, or replaced with NOS plastic.)
Car has a 6 speed transaxle gearbox connected by an alloy torque tube like our powerframe. Its mid-front-engined, like the FD with the rack well in front of the engine and 50-50 weight distribution. The motor vette or nascar or BMW v8 motors seem primitive in comparison. (They offer a v12, but its hardly necessary except for the sound and power being a big notch up with the attendant increase in weight, heat, and price. You could easily tweak the stock v8 to 475-500 flywheel hp.) Its only 3 inches longer and 2 inches higher than the FD. More in GT3 size territory. Here's a few videos...
First a good Aussie video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUKn...eature=related
Then, a Top Gear drooling on the v12...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XhMDwSlfyo
So, at about $50-65,000 used, I think these are a great car that I have on my shortest list. I love the GT3's handling, love the motor even more, like the return to a more 911-looking body, but, ultimately, that body and familiarity probably put me off combined with an interior that does nothing other than reinforce the track orientation of the car at the expense of nicer surroundings, better design, and better materials. For me, the Vantage appeals very much like the FD does. Its a very beautiful car that is also very fast and quite advanced technically what with the bonded aluminum chassis with some extraordinary torsional rigidity, front mid-engine, Graziano 6 speed rear transaxle, torque tube, and all. Plus, the interior design of the Vantage is probably the nicest interior in the sports car and supercar or luxury car market world right now, baring none.
Gordon
However with that said it might be the perfect car for a distinguished gentlemen like yourself hehe but definitely get the v12 the 8 is not worth fooling with.
With prices like that though I may add it to my list as well jk but damn 65k for a v12 Aston Martin sounds like a bargain to me. Isn't that like 100k plus car?
11-26-10, 06:30 PM
#525
All out Track Freak!
iTrader: (263)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Charlottesville VA 22901
Posts: 10,672
Received 412 Likes
on
250 Posts
HE LIVES!!!!!!
still wish I could go back and read the complete saga that was deleted when that other forum shut down.
anyways, I've been absent a few days and would like to say a few things.
In regards to whoever said that if a car doesn't use a motor that the company making the car produces it's basically a kit car, what about the lotus elise? toyota motor. What about the pagani zonda? mercedes motor. McLaren F1, BMW motor. Sure they're extreme examples, but they're definitely NOT kit cars, and neither are nobles, anymore.
I would love a 997 gt3 rs, when I first saw one in that lime green and black paint scheme something happened, it is one of the most striking cars I have ever seen.
there are too many definitions for sports car, supercar, grand tourer etc. I'm pretty sure my definition of a supercar is different from most. I don't call a car a supercar just because it meets most people's criteria for supercars. IMO a 997 gt2 is not a super car, nor is a zr1 or a new gt-r, they are super cars, but not true supercars based on their humbler origins (although the gt-r does blur the lines somewhat, it is hampered by the price and availability). There is a sense of herritage and prestige that comes with supercars. A supercar in my opinion is something like a ford gt, ferrari 430, or a lamborghini gallardo. The space between super and car is the defining thing for me. Yes there are cars that are absolutely fenomenal and do everything that they were built to do and excel, but oftentimes there is something missing that elevates cars to supercar status. I just don't think a 911, a corvette, or even a noble (despite its supercar price) can ever really be a supercar. They are stuck, at least for the time being, as super cars.
just my opinion.
and no, a car does not have to be stellar around a track to be considered a sports car. I don't think any of us would disagree that in stock form a camaro or 350z is a real track star, but they are sports cars.
m3s are fantastic cars, I've had the plesure of driving e30, e36, and e46 variants and hope to be able to autocross the last two this coming summer. They simply lack the power that is almost needed to satisfy us rx7 owners, a problem that seems to have been corrected with the e90.
I think I covered everything that I wanted to cover as I read the last 3 or 4 pages. Happy start to the Holidays everyone. Hopefully nobody ate too much that it dampens their track performance.
still wish I could go back and read the complete saga that was deleted when that other forum shut down.
anyways, I've been absent a few days and would like to say a few things.
In regards to whoever said that if a car doesn't use a motor that the company making the car produces it's basically a kit car, what about the lotus elise? toyota motor. What about the pagani zonda? mercedes motor. McLaren F1, BMW motor. Sure they're extreme examples, but they're definitely NOT kit cars, and neither are nobles, anymore.
I would love a 997 gt3 rs, when I first saw one in that lime green and black paint scheme something happened, it is one of the most striking cars I have ever seen.
there are too many definitions for sports car, supercar, grand tourer etc. I'm pretty sure my definition of a supercar is different from most. I don't call a car a supercar just because it meets most people's criteria for supercars. IMO a 997 gt2 is not a super car, nor is a zr1 or a new gt-r, they are super cars, but not true supercars based on their humbler origins (although the gt-r does blur the lines somewhat, it is hampered by the price and availability). There is a sense of herritage and prestige that comes with supercars. A supercar in my opinion is something like a ford gt, ferrari 430, or a lamborghini gallardo. The space between super and car is the defining thing for me. Yes there are cars that are absolutely fenomenal and do everything that they were built to do and excel, but oftentimes there is something missing that elevates cars to supercar status. I just don't think a 911, a corvette, or even a noble (despite its supercar price) can ever really be a supercar. They are stuck, at least for the time being, as super cars.
just my opinion.
and no, a car does not have to be stellar around a track to be considered a sports car. I don't think any of us would disagree that in stock form a camaro or 350z is a real track star, but they are sports cars.
m3s are fantastic cars, I've had the plesure of driving e30, e36, and e46 variants and hope to be able to autocross the last two this coming summer. They simply lack the power that is almost needed to satisfy us rx7 owners, a problem that seems to have been corrected with the e90.
I think I covered everything that I wanted to cover as I read the last 3 or 4 pages. Happy start to the Holidays everyone. Hopefully nobody ate too much that it dampens their track performance.