is it safe to assume that american manufacturers save for chevy with its z06, really dont rely too much on engineering as they do on just plopping a massive engine with lots of torque to get the car moving? that really in most american car cases, such as its muscle cars and supercars, weight rarely plays a role for the engineers since they plan on overcoming it with the power from the V10 or 12?
The "Newly Introduced Car That I'm Really Feeling Right Now" Thread....
- Thread starter dillaxx
- Start date
I wouldn't say that they don't rely too much on engineering as much as they only try to find ways to make an existing design work rather than tackling its shortcomings. Plus while a lot of American sports cars can generate impressive numbers (horsepower, torque, acceleration, handling, etc.), it usually does so in a less refined manner compared to their overseas competitors. Also, I wouldn't say that weight rarely plays a role for that reason, seeing how only the Viper has a V-10 and no American V-12s are in production sports cars. It's just that large-capacity, low-revving American V-8s have torque smothered all across the rev range that it can get a lot of weight moving off the line pretty easily.
While it's less of an example of that philosophy, the Z06 still displayed such goals, though they did a much better at making dated technology still work quite well. Rather than ditching pushrods for overhead cams, GM stuck with the engine design and applied some modern technology to it and made the LS7. It doesn't make any statements when it comes to hp/liter, but regardless, it's a gem, and it pulls really hard at any rpm and gets quite respectable gas mileage, so it's hard to find fault in the engine. The rear leafspring suspension is pretty ridiculous, but they tuned it really well, as the Nurburgring results speak for themselves. But the use of various materials (carbon-fiber, magnesium, etc.) in key areas was definitely a great idea.
Other cars don't quite pull the job off as gracefully. Retro looks aside, the Mustang was a big let-down not just because it came with a solid rear axle, but also because it found its way to the GT500 whereas the previous SVT Cobra at least had an IRS. Yes, there were measures taken during suspension tuning to make it handle as well as it could rather than just directly carrying over the suspension itself from the standard models, but the fact of the matter is that it is inferior to an IRS, and Ford's attempts to cover up the fact that it was done for cost purposes (since they still wanted the base Mustang V-6 to start at below $20k) with excuses that no publication has bought is just lame. And now they are offering even more powerful versions, like the GT500KR and the Super Snake variations, all with more hp and torque (great if you feel like burning rubber from a 60 mph roll) but still the same archaic rear suspension.
The recent muscle car offerings from Chrysler (300, Magnum, Charger) are all decent, though the handling aspect (not that it is fantastic) is attributed to their previous partnership with Daimler-AG, seeing how their suspensions and 5-speed automatic transmissions were all sourced from the previous-generation Mercedes E-Class. The downside is that these cars are HUGE, though the demographics that they were targeting are looking for cars like these. And the V-8s aside, the Viper is as unrefined as cars can get, though that is part of the car's charm. Let's not forget how the car started out, with its engine being an 8.0-liter truck V-10 lightly modified by Lamborghini. Personally, I still think the original 1997 Viper GTS was the best looking of all, but the 2008 Viper SRT-10 is actually quite decent with its updated powertrain, as it now has a respectable hp/liter power output. Perhaps the current Viper is the best example of the American way of generating numbers while lacking finesse. It does 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, tops out at over 200 mph, pulls over 1.0 g on the skidpad, but it's so unrefined. But to some people, particular objective numbers are more important than subjective feelings.
Personally, I think the best effort at a proper American supercar is the Saleen S7. It definitely looks the part, with its mid-engined/rear-wheel drive setup and carbon-fiber body, plus it always had some styling elements of the McLaren F1, in my eyes... not that they looked alike, but are definitely a few similarities. But beneath the skin is where the car failed. Since Saleen doesn't build engines, he had to outsource, but there aren't really any good supercar-caliber engines worth of being world-class. He ended up getting a 7.0-liter NASCAR V-8 and worked his magic to it, though the engine is still far from being a supercar engine, despite the numbers. It's a relatively low-tech car overall once you go beneath the surface. And the fast 0-60 mph time of 3.3 seconds was mostly attributed to its gearing, so 60 could be hit in first gear, though 0-100 mph was noticeably slower than other supercars with slower 0-60 times, showing the weakness of such a motor in the supercar arena. Saleen eventually made the S7 Twin-Turbo with 750 hp... an answer to a question that wasn't asked. More power is welcome, though it was never really a problem. It handled well, but only because the suspensions were ridiculously stiff due to the chassis tuning, while its competitors had better chassis tuning and more generous suspension tuning that let them be cars that could be comfortably daily-driven. If you've ever seen an S7 in person, you'll realize exactly how low these things are and how difficult they must be to drive up even a standard driveway.
Before the U.S. can make a truly world-class kick-ass supercar, they need to put emphasis on a few things. Chassis tuning is a big deal, since it will also play a role in suspension tuning. Of course Americans would never in a million years want to outsource engines for a proper supercar, but big V-8s won't cut it. A proper supercar needs to have great sound and perform more and more excitingly as the rpms climb. Also, it should be civilized and the power delivery should never be too much at a given moment. For example, the V-8 in the Ferrari F430 is perfect and will get you moving at any speed going straight, left, right, wherever in a rather linear but exciting fashion. A typical American V-8 will give you torque right away, though depending on the application, traction could be an issue, especially during a lot of throttle usage in the corners. Also, R&D needs to be done in either a proper high-performance V-10 or V-12 engine with modern technology (DOHC, VVT, direct injection, etc.) with efficiency in mind. Yes, there are American V-8s that put out north of 400 hp, but they're all massive motors, whereas the Japanese and the Europeans can do that with less than 4.0 liters and are MUCH more fun to drive. "FUN" is the keyword that Americans need to focus on, not "easy."
While it's less of an example of that philosophy, the Z06 still displayed such goals, though they did a much better at making dated technology still work quite well. Rather than ditching pushrods for overhead cams, GM stuck with the engine design and applied some modern technology to it and made the LS7. It doesn't make any statements when it comes to hp/liter, but regardless, it's a gem, and it pulls really hard at any rpm and gets quite respectable gas mileage, so it's hard to find fault in the engine. The rear leafspring suspension is pretty ridiculous, but they tuned it really well, as the Nurburgring results speak for themselves. But the use of various materials (carbon-fiber, magnesium, etc.) in key areas was definitely a great idea.
Other cars don't quite pull the job off as gracefully. Retro looks aside, the Mustang was a big let-down not just because it came with a solid rear axle, but also because it found its way to the GT500 whereas the previous SVT Cobra at least had an IRS. Yes, there were measures taken during suspension tuning to make it handle as well as it could rather than just directly carrying over the suspension itself from the standard models, but the fact of the matter is that it is inferior to an IRS, and Ford's attempts to cover up the fact that it was done for cost purposes (since they still wanted the base Mustang V-6 to start at below $20k) with excuses that no publication has bought is just lame. And now they are offering even more powerful versions, like the GT500KR and the Super Snake variations, all with more hp and torque (great if you feel like burning rubber from a 60 mph roll) but still the same archaic rear suspension.
The recent muscle car offerings from Chrysler (300, Magnum, Charger) are all decent, though the handling aspect (not that it is fantastic) is attributed to their previous partnership with Daimler-AG, seeing how their suspensions and 5-speed automatic transmissions were all sourced from the previous-generation Mercedes E-Class. The downside is that these cars are HUGE, though the demographics that they were targeting are looking for cars like these. And the V-8s aside, the Viper is as unrefined as cars can get, though that is part of the car's charm. Let's not forget how the car started out, with its engine being an 8.0-liter truck V-10 lightly modified by Lamborghini. Personally, I still think the original 1997 Viper GTS was the best looking of all, but the 2008 Viper SRT-10 is actually quite decent with its updated powertrain, as it now has a respectable hp/liter power output. Perhaps the current Viper is the best example of the American way of generating numbers while lacking finesse. It does 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, tops out at over 200 mph, pulls over 1.0 g on the skidpad, but it's so unrefined. But to some people, particular objective numbers are more important than subjective feelings.
Personally, I think the best effort at a proper American supercar is the Saleen S7. It definitely looks the part, with its mid-engined/rear-wheel drive setup and carbon-fiber body, plus it always had some styling elements of the McLaren F1, in my eyes... not that they looked alike, but are definitely a few similarities. But beneath the skin is where the car failed. Since Saleen doesn't build engines, he had to outsource, but there aren't really any good supercar-caliber engines worth of being world-class. He ended up getting a 7.0-liter NASCAR V-8 and worked his magic to it, though the engine is still far from being a supercar engine, despite the numbers. It's a relatively low-tech car overall once you go beneath the surface. And the fast 0-60 mph time of 3.3 seconds was mostly attributed to its gearing, so 60 could be hit in first gear, though 0-100 mph was noticeably slower than other supercars with slower 0-60 times, showing the weakness of such a motor in the supercar arena. Saleen eventually made the S7 Twin-Turbo with 750 hp... an answer to a question that wasn't asked. More power is welcome, though it was never really a problem. It handled well, but only because the suspensions were ridiculously stiff due to the chassis tuning, while its competitors had better chassis tuning and more generous suspension tuning that let them be cars that could be comfortably daily-driven. If you've ever seen an S7 in person, you'll realize exactly how low these things are and how difficult they must be to drive up even a standard driveway.
Before the U.S. can make a truly world-class kick-ass supercar, they need to put emphasis on a few things. Chassis tuning is a big deal, since it will also play a role in suspension tuning. Of course Americans would never in a million years want to outsource engines for a proper supercar, but big V-8s won't cut it. A proper supercar needs to have great sound and perform more and more excitingly as the rpms climb. Also, it should be civilized and the power delivery should never be too much at a given moment. For example, the V-8 in the Ferrari F430 is perfect and will get you moving at any speed going straight, left, right, wherever in a rather linear but exciting fashion. A typical American V-8 will give you torque right away, though depending on the application, traction could be an issue, especially during a lot of throttle usage in the corners. Also, R&D needs to be done in either a proper high-performance V-10 or V-12 engine with modern technology (DOHC, VVT, direct injection, etc.) with efficiency in mind. Yes, there are American V-8s that put out north of 400 hp, but they're all massive motors, whereas the Japanese and the Europeans can do that with less than 4.0 liters and are MUCH more fun to drive. "FUN" is the keyword that Americans need to focus on, not "easy."
the new viper has some new technology in its engine. for one its a pushrod engine with variable valve timing. something very new and wasnt done before
its true, other car manufacturers give power with less displacement. but the thing is that the american car enthusiast crowd is different. they like low revving, big torque, loud get sideways at 2000rpms engines. what other engines can do that besides an american motor. a modena 360 engine doesnt have enough torque to give americans that. my father is an example. hes a big fan of rotaries and likes them because they rev high. and he also likes him muscle cars. but im sure if the mustangs he owned (86 5.0 and 97 gt) were 3.5 liter v8s that revved to 7500rpms and and made 195lbft of torque and barely got sideway with effort he wouldve been disappointed. because mustangs and other american cars arent meant to have small motors. its big displacement that they are known for. look at how many people are swapping out the rotaries out of rx7s and putting in a "clumsy" 5.7 liter v8 aka the ls1 motor. why? because it makes hp for cheap, has alot of torque to make it fun, and is plenty reliable. youre forgetting the difference between squeezing power out of a big displacement and small displacement. the small displacement has to make more effort to make the same amount of power as a big displacement. wouldnt that mean the engine in turn has to suffer more?
^ I completely agree, there's nothing untrue about what you said. Which is why I think most American V-8 enthusiasts (with the exception of the C6 Z06 fans) are idiots who perpetuate the Big Three staying in the stone age of automotive engineering, progressing tippy-toe at a time while competitors overseas are moving by leaps and bounds. Yes, they still get the job done, but there's going to be a point when they start to hit absolute limits, then they're going to whine about how much money they have to dump into R&D for new platforms because they never really bothered to do so in the past.
Also, when put on fair proving grounds, matching an American V-8 against a smaller displacement Japanese or European-powered car with the same horsepower (but even less torque, due to the engine capacity) in cars with similar curb weights, and the Japanese/European car will not only be more fun to drive, but also faster and more involving. As a side note, I was hanging out at my friend's house a few weeks ago, and his dad came in and started talking about cars with me, knowing that I'm a big fan of cars. He mentioned that he has a co-worker his age who has a C5 convertible but also a younger co-worker closer to my age who has an S2000. He has ridden with both of them, and while not too familiar with the specifics of cars, he was able to notice the differences between the cars and the drivers. Obviously he pointed out how much pull the C5 has off-idle, but he also pointed out how explosive the S2000 felt in the higher rpms. He also felt that due to the nature of both cars, the S2000 was the more precise cars while its driver was the better driver and more capable of the two, seeing how a car like the S2000 requires more driver input as far as keeping the engine boiling. He was pretty adamant about the S2000 being able to hypothetically being able to pull off better times in both cars compared to the C5 driver doing the same tests in both cars, given they both get a few practice rounds to somewhat familiarize themselves with the vehicle and its dynamics.
Unfortunately, American V-8s, due to their ease of use regarding generating power for acceleration, leads to a lot of (not all) lazy drivers who can only drive cars with the same type of power delivery.
Also, when put on fair proving grounds, matching an American V-8 against a smaller displacement Japanese or European-powered car with the same horsepower (but even less torque, due to the engine capacity) in cars with similar curb weights, and the Japanese/European car will not only be more fun to drive, but also faster and more involving. As a side note, I was hanging out at my friend's house a few weeks ago, and his dad came in and started talking about cars with me, knowing that I'm a big fan of cars. He mentioned that he has a co-worker his age who has a C5 convertible but also a younger co-worker closer to my age who has an S2000. He has ridden with both of them, and while not too familiar with the specifics of cars, he was able to notice the differences between the cars and the drivers. Obviously he pointed out how much pull the C5 has off-idle, but he also pointed out how explosive the S2000 felt in the higher rpms. He also felt that due to the nature of both cars, the S2000 was the more precise cars while its driver was the better driver and more capable of the two, seeing how a car like the S2000 requires more driver input as far as keeping the engine boiling. He was pretty adamant about the S2000 being able to hypothetically being able to pull off better times in both cars compared to the C5 driver doing the same tests in both cars, given they both get a few practice rounds to somewhat familiarize themselves with the vehicle and its dynamics.
Unfortunately, American V-8s, due to their ease of use regarding generating power for acceleration, leads to a lot of (not all) lazy drivers who can only drive cars with the same type of power delivery.
lazy? no thats called fun. my uncles srt8 cherokee is an example. 420hp and 420lbft. just tapping the gas the thing launches and throws you in your seat. i like cars that can make you work like the s2000 and elise. but i dont see anything wrong with having a muscle car that can get sideways with like half throttle. you gotta understand all these cars are different beasts. not everyone has similar taste. youre generalizing american car enthusiasts calling them lazy. not true, they just got different taste. as much as i like the s2000, and i want one, ive also heard that they require plenty of revs just to get around in normal driving, especially the ap1 which was a 2.0 liter. that isnt good when you always gotta rev that high to go somewhere. compared to fathers old 97 mustang which you can shift at 2500rpms and still have plenty of power to get going. just ask the rx7 guys why they are switching over to the "old pushrods" (when in reality pushrods are newer than ohc) from the 13b. the only guys staying with the 13b are the fanboys.
^ I've driven them before, as even just in high school I had a buddy who went through a '65 and a '66 Mustang and another buddy with a '71 Nova with a 350 ci V-8 putting down close to 400 hp, then there were my college friends who had the modern V-8s (Camaros and what not). I'm not saying that you can't like big American V-8s, as I think they do have their good characteristics. But anyone who prefers them over all else for performance purposes (but not for engine swaps into RX-7s, which I'm well aware of) versus plain personal preference is just ignorant, otherwise if they really wanted serious performance (versus bragging rights to engine sizes and torque bands), they'd be driving something else, money aside. Yes, American muscle cars are easy to get sideways, which can be fun, but it's not the type of sideways that you'd want to go when going for something like track times on anything that's not a drag strip.
Regarding the S2000, yes, you have to rev it damn near redline just to get any sort of pull beyond that of any other standard Civic. While it's exciting once you're in the power band, it's just so narrow that it becomes more of a headache not just keeping it boiling above 7k rpm the whole time but listening to the engine spin at that speed the whole time. I think it's a cool car, but I'm personally not a huge fan of it because of the power band, even on the 2.2-liter.
While I don't doubt that the bigger V-8s like your dad's could easily be daily driven with 2500 rpm shifts, keep in mind the rev range of the engine, as I figure the redline should be right around 6k rpm, so compared to higher-revving engines, whether Japanese or European, that's like shifting at 3000 or 3500 rpm (depending on redline), typically when things get interesting anyway. And about the RX-7s switching over to LS1s, I'm well aware of that, plus the rotaries aren't too reliable anyway and have limits that are hit sooner when it comes to making a lot more power compared to most other sports car engines that get modified.
I'm not saying people can't like American muscle cars (though this applies more to the non-Vette and Viper cars that are more one-trick ponies), I'm not saying people can't own them, can't enjoy them, can't like them, can't be enthusiastic about them, but let's not try to mask the truth. They are LAZY engines for the most part. By lazy, I don't mean that they don't make power, since that is absolutely far from the truth. But when you're putting out good horsepower numbers from a huge engine that doesn't rev much beyond 6k rpm hence being a lot less involving, its very unimpressive, and anyone who gets worked up about such an engine is nuts. There are plenty of high-revving motors that are fun at most revs and not just fun at the last 1000 rpm, American car companies need to take note of that.
Some people only care about the end result, which is fine, I'm not going to twist anyone's arm. But to put it into perspective, let's say you want to see who can bench 250 pounds. On one hand, you have a fat ass guy who weighs 250 and eats burgers and pizza everyday, but he can bench it. Then let's say you have another guy who is in shape and weighs 175 but can also bench 250. Yes, both were capable of doing the same activity, though one of them obviously had to do a bit more work to be able to physically be capable of doing the activity due to it being quite a bit more than his own weight. But when it comes down to it, you know who to give more props to, and you know who you'd want on your team.
Regarding the S2000, yes, you have to rev it damn near redline just to get any sort of pull beyond that of any other standard Civic. While it's exciting once you're in the power band, it's just so narrow that it becomes more of a headache not just keeping it boiling above 7k rpm the whole time but listening to the engine spin at that speed the whole time. I think it's a cool car, but I'm personally not a huge fan of it because of the power band, even on the 2.2-liter.
While I don't doubt that the bigger V-8s like your dad's could easily be daily driven with 2500 rpm shifts, keep in mind the rev range of the engine, as I figure the redline should be right around 6k rpm, so compared to higher-revving engines, whether Japanese or European, that's like shifting at 3000 or 3500 rpm (depending on redline), typically when things get interesting anyway. And about the RX-7s switching over to LS1s, I'm well aware of that, plus the rotaries aren't too reliable anyway and have limits that are hit sooner when it comes to making a lot more power compared to most other sports car engines that get modified.
I'm not saying people can't like American muscle cars (though this applies more to the non-Vette and Viper cars that are more one-trick ponies), I'm not saying people can't own them, can't enjoy them, can't like them, can't be enthusiastic about them, but let's not try to mask the truth. They are LAZY engines for the most part. By lazy, I don't mean that they don't make power, since that is absolutely far from the truth. But when you're putting out good horsepower numbers from a huge engine that doesn't rev much beyond 6k rpm hence being a lot less involving, its very unimpressive, and anyone who gets worked up about such an engine is nuts. There are plenty of high-revving motors that are fun at most revs and not just fun at the last 1000 rpm, American car companies need to take note of that.
Some people only care about the end result, which is fine, I'm not going to twist anyone's arm. But to put it into perspective, let's say you want to see who can bench 250 pounds. On one hand, you have a fat ass guy who weighs 250 and eats burgers and pizza everyday, but he can bench it. Then let's say you have another guy who is in shape and weighs 175 but can also bench 250. Yes, both were capable of doing the same activity, though one of them obviously had to do a bit more work to be able to physically be capable of doing the activity due to it being quite a bit more than his own weight. But when it comes down to it, you know who to give more props to, and you know who you'd want on your team.
^ No, I went to UC Irvine (in the OC). USC is more for rich kids, typically born and raised in the OC though. I didn't even bother applying there.
^ I'm not sure about the first generation SMG, but there are fully automatic modes in both the SMG II (from the outgoing M3) and the SMG III (from the current M5), though you can choose from any of several different shift patterns depending on what kind of driving you're doing. But keep in mind SMG is a BMW-specific transmission, though the mechanism of it is the same as Ferrari's F1 transmissions (available in pretty much anything after the F355, in which it debuted, except the transmission in the Ferrari Enzo, from what I remember, doesn't have a fully automatic mode), and the general term for this type of transmission is automated manual. I believe that even the now out of commission Toyota MR-2 was available with a similar transmission.
And regarding UCI, I believe the most recent rankings put it in the top 40 of all universities in the U.S., and in the top 10 of all public universities, so I'm in good company.
And regarding UCI, I believe the most recent rankings put it in the top 40 of all universities in the U.S., and in the top 10 of all public universities, so I'm in good company.
^^ yeah you are... the 08 rankings put it in the 40's... what did you major in btw?
and so if i were to get an m5....lets just say, someone like me that could drive shift, just not well and doesnt want to anyhow could drive this thing without ever moving my right hand?
and so if i were to get an m5....lets just say, someone like me that could drive shift, just not well and doesnt want to anyhow could drive this thing without ever moving my right hand?
One degree in Criminology, another degree in Psychology.
But yes, in the current M5 with SMG III, you could drive it without using your right hand, except when putting it in D or whatever, just like in an automatic. Even if you wanted to shift manually, I believe that there are still paddles behind the steering wheel like in the M3 with SMG II.
But yes, in the current M5 with SMG III, you could drive it without using your right hand, except when putting it in D or whatever, just like in an automatic. Even if you wanted to shift manually, I believe that there are still paddles behind the steering wheel like in the M3 with SMG II.
Lamborghini Reventon
man this car looks nice... they say its a murcielago with some changes, but i see it as a completely different model...
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/11/frankfurt-2007-the-2008-lamborghini-reventon/
man this car looks nice... they say its a murcielago with some changes, but i see it as a completely different model...
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/11/frankfurt-2007-the-2008-lamborghini-reventon/
Donate
Back in the day, we used to recieve donations sent as cash in fake birthday cards! Those were the days! I still have some of them, actually.
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8
Members online
No members online now.