elise V. s2000

Discussion in '2000 Lotus Elise 111S' started by Brit cars rule, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: elise V. s2000

    If it's an oval track then yeah but remember the Elise has near supercar pace on a normal track<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. they r both well disigned cars, and the price is about the same too. they both ment to be a drivers car and ppl who drove them usually give hight marks. i know the lotus would probably have a upperhand on handleing and sterring response cuz it's weight, but the s2000 is not bad either, and keep in mind it's a 2 liter 240 bhp madly enginered thing. both r quality cars. which one will u take when the lotus comes into the U.S.?<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Re: elise V. s2000

    Elise, as it offers a greater driver experience although the S2000 does have a good "punch" to it<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: elise V. s2000

    yeah but the s2000 has the top speed, so if the track was longer then i think the s2k would win<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: elise V. s2000

    I would take the Lotus for superior handeling.
     
  6. Re: elise V. s2000

    Are you kidding? I have a great amount of respect for the S2000, especially now that they're giving it more low-end power. But comparing it to what is essentially a pure track car is rediculous. The Lotus Elise would blow the S2000 away, unless we're talking about a drag strip or oval track or something along those lines.
     
  7. Re: elise V. s2000

    Did anyone else loose respect for the elise when the Noble M12 came out. I thought the performance for the elise was incredible given the horsepower it had available; but I think the M12 does everything better and in a better package. The M12 had better grip numbers than the elise in a competition in europe, but I haven't been able to find a head to head track comparison. If anyone has any arguments for the superiority of the elise I would like to hear them, but all of the numbers I have seen side by side make me lean toward the M12. The s2000 is also a great car bt I wish everyone would stop raving about its hp per liter numbers. Everyone wants to discredit the corvette and viper saying Honda could make a 900hp car if they used the same displacement as the Viper but they proved that they can't keep that ratio up with even a 2/10L displacement increase.
     
  8. Re: elise V. s2000

    Lotus!
     
  9. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    Did anyone else loose respect for the elise when the Noble M12 came out.
    ---

    Of course not.


    ---
    I thought the performance for the elise was incredible given the horsepower it had available; but I think the M12 does everything better and in a better package.
    ---

    And for almost twice the price... If you're going to compare the Noble to something, compare it to a TVR. If you're going to compare the Lotus to something, try a Honda S2000 or BMW Z3 - both of which it slaughters.


    ---
    The s2000 is also a great car bt I wish everyone would stop raving about its hp per liter numbers.
    ---

    No kidding. Specific output means very little all by itself. Incidentally, there are more impressive cars in this area that the S2000. It just has the best numbers of a mainstream company. There are lots of little operations out there (e.g. Radical Motorsports) who get better specific outputs from their engines.


    ---
    Everyone wants to discredit the corvette and viper saying Honda could make a 900hp car if they used the same displacement as the Viper
    ---

    Just about anyone could. TVR got almost 1000bhp from their 7.7 liter V-12 engine. They might have gotten more but the central shaft of their 1000bhp-rated dynomometer snapped at around 5500rpm (the redline was reportedly almost 8000rpm) and the project was cancelled shortly thereafter. They're currently building a 550bhp version of their 4.0 liter I-6 for the upcoming Typhon model.

    Both the Viper and Corvette engines are pathetic examples of Detroit "Yestertech" - a moronic phrase that Detroit invented to try to rationalize their insistence on continuing to use ancient tecnology.
     
  10. Re: elise V. s2000

    I'd like to see the F20C power plant in the Elise - an S2000, Elise hybrid, I think it'd be awesome.
     
  11. Re: elise V. s2000

    You make some good points, and I agree with most of them. I have respect for the elise and the s2000. I just prefer performance cars that are more fun to drive on the road than the track. There are a couple of things I disagree with. The M12 is more expencive than the elise but not twice as expensive. You are comparing the price of having the Noble shipped to the US and having an engine and transmision installed. The price is much lower in Europe; and I think the difference is well worth almost triple the hp. When the elise comes to the US, and if the Noble is ever sold here in one piece, I think the prices will be reasonably close. The main point that everyone raves about the elise is the grip and the M12 out grips it with a ton more hp. I also agree that anyone can build a 1000hp/litre car. Howvere, the larger the displacement the larger the moving engine parts. Overcoming the physics to achieve the same hp/liter that the s2000 has becomes a problem with a bigge engine and the cost rises exponentially. Ferarri has a 6 litre enging that has over 100 hp/litre and look how much it costs. Honda increased the displacement on the s2000 and couldn't maintain the same ratio. They could build a 900hp 8.0 litre V10 but the price would be in the Ferrari range, not Honda range. This is why American sport cars une "lowtech" big displacement engines. This allows them to provide people with an awesome performing car that is more affordable. Put the Corvette Z06 on a track with an s2000 and I think you will se that the extra displacement and torque offset the weight. It is impossible to keep a car at redline all of the time so the total power band is more important than the top endpower number (and is even more important when driving fast off of a race track). The last problem with tuning a factory car to the very limits of its output. There will be a better performing car come out every year, and unless you have the money or love leasing them and not owning them, it is almost impossible to aftermarket tune them with out rebuilding the entire engine. I have a 2000 M Roadster and was pissed when the 2001 came out with 75 more hp in the same size engine. That was until I started looking at aftermarket tuning for my car. I considered doing an engine swap to have a better starting point, but then I saw 1 supercharger project after another get scrapped. The couldn't keep the engine from blowing up. Low boost superchargers are finally coming out for this engine but a lot of engine rebuilding is involved and 1000rpm had to be taken off the redline. The output of these units is the same as a supercharger for my car but with less low end power and a lot more money. The same held true for the s2000. When a supercharger was developed for it they were ablet to add 100 hp to the car but, since now low end power was the problem, they only subtracted 0.1 seconds off the 0-60. As far as saying that a s2000 would take an M Roadster off the line if they were revved to 5000 rpm's it probably would. The M Roadster would sit there spinning its tires while the s2000 took off. Start the 2000 however you like but the best launches for a BMW has always to have almost no wheel spin off the line. The power band is nice and flat so the tires don't need to spin to keep the engine from bogging down. They are both great cars and I probably would own a s2000 now except that in 2000 dealers were gouging $10,000 to the starting price which made the cost the same. For the same money i chose the M Roadster and would do it again 100 times over.
     
  12. Re: elise V. s2000

    I think thats the longest reply i have seen a long time!

    Elise all the way, allthough i do like the s2000 you can red line at 9000rev which i think is impresive for a production car at that must be some stress to the engine?
     
  13. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    The M12 is more expencive than the elise but not twice as expensive.
    ---

    I said *almost* twice as expensive. A basic Elise is around £26,000 and a basic M12 is around £50,000. Wouldn't you say my characterization is fair?


    ---
    When the elise comes to the US, and if the Noble is ever sold here in one piece, I think the prices will be reasonably close.
    ---

    Why? They aren't close anywhere else in the world?


    ---
    Howvere, the larger the displacement the larger the moving engine parts. Overcoming the physics to achieve the same hp/liter that the s2000 has becomes a problem with a bigge engine and the cost rises exponentially. Ferarri has a 6 litre enging that has over 100 hp/litre and look how much it costs.
    ---

    A couple of points. First of all, the problems you describe occur when you increase the displacement *per cylinder* not for the overall engine. Honda could have made a 3.0 liter I-6, 4.0 liter V-8 or 6.0 liter V-12 with the exact same bore/stroke as the 2.0 liter I-4 engine they put in the S2000. It could have had exactly the same rev-limit and specific output without requiring them to strengthen any of the engine components. In fact, the I-6 or V-12 I just described would actually have more power and a higher rev limit simply by virtue of the I-6/V-12 configuration being smoother.

    Second, Ferrari doesn't charge what they do for cars and engines because they have to, they do it because they can. Its the same reason that a watch with a "Rolex" logo would sell for more than the exact same watch with a "Timex" logo.


    ---
    Honda increased the displacement on the s2000 and couldn't maintain the same ratio.
    ---

    That's right, because they increased the stroke of the engine. This meant more torque (which their customers have been demanding for years) but also more stress on the pistons and con-rods... thus a lower redline to go along with the added power.

    But, if they had increased displacement by adding cylinders rather than increasing the displacement of the existing ones, they could have had both more power and the same or even higher redline.


    ---
    They could build a 900hp 8.0 litre V10 but the price would be in the Ferrari range, not Honda range.
    ---

    Of course. Because V-10s are much more expensive and difficuly to design than any other configuration. Plus, you have the radically increasing the displacement/cylinder. If maximum power is what they want, they'd be much better off with a 6.0 liter V-12 with the same displacement/cylinder as their existing engine. They'd not only have no problem maintaining the 120bhp/liter (720bhp) they'd probably exceed it due to the advantages of the V-12 configuration. Remember, the I-6/V-12 design is perfectly balanced so that means a higher redline. A higher redline means more specific output. Plus, a V-12 means three times as many pistons fire per rev. I figure they could easily make 140bhp/liter from such a configuration - that's 840bhp. As I mentioned above, TVR made 122 from a much larger (7.7 liter) engine.

    I'm surprised Honda hasn't done a concept car based on a V-12 version of the F20C. They could to a monster version of the NSX.




     
  14. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    allthough i do like the s2000 you can red line at 9000rev which i think is impresive for a production car at that must be some stress to the engine?
    ---

    Not really. It is better to think of the S2000's engine as a large-displacement motorcycle engine which it more nearly resembles than a car engine.

    While you're probably right in thinking there is a bit more stress on that engine at 9000rpm than there is on an Accord engine at 7000rpm, the difference won't be a big one.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see S2000s do well over 100,000 miles before needing an engine rebuild if they are properly run-in and then carefully maintained.
     
  15. Re: elise V. s2000

    Yeh good way of looking at it, cheers.

    So Elise or S2000?
     
  16. Re: elise V. s2000

    "I'm surprised Honda hasn't done a concept car based on a V-12 version of the F20C. They could to a monster version of the NSX."
    It would be nice if they would do a production NSX with even a large v6 or small v8. I love that car but for the money they charge it should have more power. The new NSX replacement is only going to post 300 hp. I can't believe they are finally going to restyle that car after more than a decade and only add 10 hp.
     
  17. Re: elise V. s2000

    I have to admit my ignorance on the M12 pricing. I had seen an article that the elise would be pried in the U.S. for about $43,000 for the 136 R. I had read in evo magazine that the noble M12 runs for about 44,950 in England. I didn't realize at the time that they were giving the price in pounds as the symbol wasn't next to the price in the mag. The Elise truly is a great sport value. Thanks to Jon for pointing that out. My comment about the price of what a large displacement engine would cost if Honda produced one with the same technology was only trying to point out that american car companies trying to achieve performance are just taking a different approach. I think the technology in the s2000 engine is impressive but if trying to stay withing a set budget you can either have a small displacement enging with a lot of hp/ltr or a larger engine with less technology that has more weight but more torque. The s2000 approach has undeniable advantages on the track but larger displacement makes for a more drivable car in everyday situations. It also provides a lot more head room for aftermarket improvements. The turbo Lingenfelter Z06 gets 0-60 in 1.9 sec. The supercharged comptech s2000 (I know it has other benefits on the track) only shaved 0.1 sec off the current 0-60. Don't fault the corvette Z06 for lack of technology, they are just making a different car within a set budget. I personally prefer more displacement and torque but to each his own.
     
  18. #18 Jon Gwynne, Jun 7, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    My comment about the price of what a large displacement engine would cost if Honda produced one with the same technology was only trying to point out that american car companies trying to achieve performance are just taking a different approach.
    ---

    Yeah, it's called "being lazy" and treating potential customers as if they were stupid. That's the main reason that American so-called "sports cars" aren't taken seriously outside trailer parks.


    ---
    The s2000 approach has undeniable advantages on the track but larger displacement makes for a more drivable car in everyday situations.
    ---

    I agree. That's why I think a 3.0 liter I-6 with the same basic design as the S2000 engine would be a better choice.

    There's no reason why you should have to choose between displacement and technology. TVR has done both. Their 4.0 liter I-6 is good for 400bhp and has a nice high redline (around 7200rpm IIRC). Don't anyone try to convince me that a giant American corporation couldn't do at least as well as a handful of engineers working in Blackpool England.


    ---
    The turbo Lingenfelter Z06 gets 0-60 in 1.9 sec.
    ---

    Really? Are you sure? According to their web site, they only manage 0-60 in 3.2 second. And that's for their top-of-the-line 725bhp, twin-turbo engine upgrade that costs as much as the car itself.

    http://www.lingenfelter.com/performance725turbols1corvette.asp



    ---
    The supercharged comptech s2000 (I know it has other benefits on the track) only shaved 0.1 sec off the current 0-60.
    ---

    At least one of the problems is that the F20C engine was never designed to be force-fed. In fact, it was specifically designed not to be. They were going for specific-output to the exclusion of all else.



    ---
    Don't fault the corvette Z06 for lack of technology, they are just making a different car within a set budget.
    ---

    Come on, you're letting them off too easy. First of all, Corvettes aren't cheap at $40k-$50k. Second, the model has been coasting on its laurels for decades now. Third, Chevy have massive resources they could call on that are already capitalized and to turn the Corvette into a world-class GT would be child's play for them. However, the bean-counters continue to look at the bottom-line and say "If we do nothing, we'll still sell X number of cars because there are people out there who want the Corvette name and shape but don't dive a damn what's under the hood as long as it sounds like a V-8. So, from their perspective, they have no inventive to make the Corvette a great car. Especially since it would take years and perhaps decades to overcome the damage their attitude has done to the reputation of American performance cars.

    If the bottom-of-the-line Corvette with an automatic transmission could spank a Ferrari Enzo's ass around the 'Ring and could leave the Porsche Carrera GT in a cloud of tire smoke like it was a Hyundai that needed a tune-up, the yuppie snots still wouldn't buy it because the image of the Big Three is so tainted. That's why the Big Three buy foreign carmakers. That way, the yuppies can buy their foreign cars and the money still goes to Detroit.
     
  19. Re: elise V. s2000

    The reason for having to choose between displacement and technology, as you put it, has to do with cost and torque. If two cars have the same hp but different displacements, the car with the larger displacement will have more torque and the power will be available sooner. This can big advantages in acceleration. The S2000 couldn't keep the same hp to power ratio when increasing the displacement by 0.2L. This wasn't because they got lazy, it was because the stroke was longer. They saw the advantages of having the power available sooner. It makes the car more driveable and quicker. The engines in the Viper and Corvette have more displacement per cylinder and a longer stroke because they chose to set the engine up for more torque. This makes the moving parts in the engine larger and have to travel farther. Honda couldn't get 120hp/liter with a longer stroke, so why do you fault Chevy and Dodge for not being able to do it. They don't put a 3.0L I6 in the S2000 for the same reason Chevy doesn't change their 6L 405hp V-8 to a 6L 600hp V12, cost. The Corvette Z06 is a great track car with incresible handling and acceleration. I have never read an article on the car that has said otherwise. Everyone has there own preference on how they want their car to drive. Some like to have a car thats engine whines with a high rev and some like to have a lot of torque off the gun. This is why people buy Corvettes when you can get an S2000 instead. It is a matter of taste and opinion. I like both cars but own neither because neither suits my exact taste. It is fine if your opinion is that you prefer the setup of the S2000 engine, but that doens't make it a fact that it is better than longer stroke engines. It is an opinion. If you think that American manufacturers are being lazy by getting hp by using displacement, then don't you think that every forced induction car is a funtion of lazieness? You really seem to know what you are talking about. I think you should test drive a Z06, or C6 and see if you like the extra torque at the expense of high rpm's. In the end, it is all about how a car feels when you drive it. I totally respect your opinions on the S2000, and I think it is a wonderful car. I also appreciate the Elise more now that I realize that I was looking at the M12's price in pounds. The Lingenfelter Corvette that got 0-60 in 1.9 sec was featured in Motor Trend. I can't find the issue, but it was about a year ago.
     
  20. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    The S2000 couldn't keep the same hp to power ratio when increasing the displacement by 0.2L
    ---

    Sure they could. The 2.2L S2000 still produces 240bhp and more torque because of the longer stroke.

    ---
    They saw the advantages of having the power available sooner. It makes the car more driveable and quicker.
    ---

    I agree.


    ---
    The engines in the Viper and Corvette have more displacement per cylinder and a longer stroke because they chose to set the engine up for more torque
    ---

    Right. In fact, the Viper engine was originally designed for a truck. Then they had Lamborghini convert it from an iron block to an alloy block so they could shoe-horn it into a two-seater Cobra wannabe.


    ---
    Honda couldn't get 120hp/liter with a longer stroke
    ---

    What do you mean they "couldn't"? Who told you that?



    ---
    They [Honda] don't put a 3.0L I6 in the S2000 for the same reason Chevy doesn't change their 6L 405hp V-8 to a 6L 600hp V12, cost
    ---

    It has little to do with cost in either case. First, both companies are known to produce engines of a certain configuration. Honda is known for its I-4 engines and Chevy (at least as far as the Corvette is concerned) is known for V-8s. The actual difference in cost to manufacture the different designs is minmal - especially if as was the case both for Honda with their F20C and Chevy with the LS6, they were toolling up for a competely different engine design.

    At most it would have added a few thousand dollars to the cost of producing the car.

    However, I think you'll find that (whether you agree with this sentiment or not) that most Corvette lovers wouldn't consider a car with a V-12 engine to be a "proper" Corvette any more than a Porsche 911 isn't really a "proper" car without a flat-six.

    In the case of the Honda, they were constrained by that ridiculous "gentleman's agreement" in Japan regarding the 287bhp threhhold. A 3.0 liter I-6 with 120bhp/liter would be good for 360bhp - well in excess of that.


    ---
    The Corvette Z06 is a great track car with incresible handling and acceleration.
    ---

    It has excellent acceleration, I'll grant you that but handling? Compared to other Corvettes or other American performance cars, I'll grant you that. But as a track-day car, the Corvette is woefully inadequate against specialized hardware. The main advantage of the Corvette, as I have said many times before, is that it is a suitable car for someone who wants performance but can't really afford to buy a specialized car to get it. So, they not only get their power and acceleration, but relatively modest fuel consumption if they baby the car while driving around town. It is the kind of car that someone could drive every day. So, it has "all the amenities" which adds weight. It also has a soft ride which compromises handling and cornering. It has an automatic transmission (as an option) which blunts performance but allows numpties to drive them.


    ---
    This is why people buy Corvettes when you can get an S2000 instead. It is a matter of taste and opinion. I like both cars but own neither because neither suits my exact taste.
    ---

    So what IS your exact taste?


    ---
    I think you should test drive a Z06, or C6 and see if you like the extra torque at the expense of high rpm's
    ---

    I've driven them. I've also driven TVRs which give both high torque and high revs. Sweet.


    ---
    The Lingenfelter Corvette that got 0-60 in 1.9 sec was featured in Motor Trend. I can't find the issue, but it was about a year ago.
    ---

    Is it possible that you remembered it wrong? Why would Lingenfelter themselves so dramatically understate the performance of their cars?


     
  21. Re: elise V. s2000

    I didn't mean hp to power ratio. I meant hp/l. One of HOnda's bragging points about the S 2000 was that the throttle bodies moved faster in it than in their formula 1 car. They said that they couldn't keep that speed up if the pistons had longer to travel so they had to decrease the redline. If they can keep that same hp/L then they are being lazy about not doing it.

    I think that image does have something to do with engine choice, but so does cost. An even bigger problem is engine size. If you try to increase displacement by increasein stroke by lets say 1cm, you make the engine 1cm deeper. However if you do it by increasing bore to allow for the engine to rev high then you add 1cm of length for each cylinder in the row. If you are working within a given space, and want increase displacement, it is better to add stroke. You get more torque, and usually more hp without changing the engine size so much. They use a V6 in the NSX and it costs $90,000. If they could get a 6 cylinder in the S2000, I'm sure the price would jump a bunch. Also, why use a 3L I6 to get more power in the S2000. Isn't that being lazy. Shouldn't every car have a 2L I4 and we can just keep upping the redline until we get the power we want.

    I'm sure I remember the article on the Lingenfelter right. I think the website is being responsible and posting to 0-60 as car manufacturers do, by giving the average of several runs. They can't just ust thee best one. I remember the article because the Lingenfelter became the fastest accelerating street car they had every tested, beating out the Hennesy Viper that posted a 2.3 sec 0-60. The Lingenfelter was in a tuner car shootout in Car and Driver and posted a 0-60 closer to the 3 sec. Someone wrote in asking about the discrepency and they said he spun his tires. I think he was taking it easy on the car because he was trashing everyone else in the competition. He beat out several tuned corvettes, vipers, a 720hp 911 and a comptech NSX. He had the best track time beating the NSX by 17 sec which came in 12th. I guess the corvette isn't too bad on the track. It also shows that a bigger engine helps even on the track.
     
  22. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    One of HOnda's bragging points about the S 2000 was that the throttle bodies moved faster in it than in their formula 1 car
    ---

    Are you sure you meant to say "throttle bodies"?


    ---
    If you try to increase displacement by increasein stroke by lets say 1cm, you make the engine 1cm deeper. However if you do it by increasing bore to allow for the engine to rev high then you add 1cm of length for each cylinder in the row
    ---

    Another advantage to increasing displacement by stroking an engine is that you can continue using the same pistons. Stroking an engine requires a lot less redesign work.


    ---
    They use a V6 in the NSX and it costs $90,000. If they could get a 6 cylinder in the S2000, I'm sure the price would jump a bunch.
    ---

    The NSX doesn't cost as much as it does because it has a V-6. Honda makes other cars with V-6s that don't cost as much. Look at the difference in price between an Accord with an I-4 and the same model with a V-6 - only a few thousand in retail price and a lot of that is for marketing reasons rather than to cover the additional cost of the engine.

    Yes, an S2000 with an I-6 engine would cost more to build but it would have been well worth it. Put another way, would you pay a few thousand more for an S2000 with 360bhp and in excess of 250lb/ft of torque?


    ---
    Also, why use a 3L I6 to get more power in the S2000. Isn't that being lazy. Shouldn't every car have a 2L I4 and we can just keep upping the redline until we get the power we want.
    ---

    Why should every car have a 2.0 liter engine?



    ---
    I think the [Lingenfelter] website is being responsible and posting to 0-60 as car manufacturers do, by giving the average of several runs.
    ---

    If that's true, then if they managed a 1.9 second 0-60 time and are giving the average as 3.2 then they must have had an equal number of 4.5 second runs in order to balance it out to get the 3.2 second average. That doesn't sound very likely, does it?

    Sorry, but I just don't see any way that a car as heavy as a Corvette can make it from 0-60 in 1.9 seconds on street tires. Laws of physics and all...


     
  23. Re: elise V. s2000

    A reader wrote into Motor Trend saying physics wouldn't allow for the corvette to post that time either. He said he had a friend that was a physics professor and said the car would stand straight up. All they said was that the laws of physics has a lot of explaining to John Force. I think they just launched the car really hard for the artiicle. I don't think they would be able to repeatedly post that time because of the stress on the car and the odds of wheelspin. I have seen a Lancer Evo post 4.4 in a test. That is way better than the manufacturer time. It kills a 4 wheel drive car to launch it that hard. I'm not sure they said throttle bodies was the part moving faster than their F1 car but I will try to find the article. My preference in cars is in the middle of the corvette and the s2000. I like both but prefer a compromise. I have owned an M3 and now drive a M roadster. If I had to pick a favorite manufacturer it would be TVR. Speed 12 is my dream car.
     
  24. Re: elise V. s2000

    ---
    A reader wrote into Motor Trend saying physics wouldn't allow for the corvette to post that time either. He said he had a friend that was a physics professor and said the car would stand straight up.
    ---

    Well, I don't know about standing up, but the fact is that the power of the engine has to be converted into forward motion by the driven wheels/tires.

    If you put more power to the wheels than they can handle, they will spin and a spinning wheel isn't nearly as efficiently in converting rotational force into forward motion.

    Four-wheel drive systems allow more power to be sent to the wheels since there are more of them, butm as you pointed out, the drive mechanism is more complex and doesn't react well to hard starts.

    The idea that a 3000lb car can accelerate to 60mph from a standstill in less than 2 seconds is inherently suspect. The power necessary to create such a launch would create major traction problems which would result in a slower acceleration time. That's why the cars that are best at these short sprints are invariably the light ones. In the supercar league, there is the McLaren, the Pagani Zonda and the Koenigsegg. For less affluent folk, there are various Lotus Seven clones like Caterham and Westfield as well as more traditional car designs like those from TVR and Noble. All of these cars are either near the 1000kg mark or, in the case of the Seven spinoffs, they are well under it.


    ---
    If I had to pick a favorite manufacturer it would be TVR. Speed 12 is my dream car.
    ---

    I like the Blackpool Bombers myself. I've never driven a Speed 12 but I sat in one at a car show. My favorite TVR I've actually driven would probably be the 4.0 liter Tuscan. What a beast! It is more like a four-wheel superbike than a car in terms of performance. Both the acceleration and braking are astonishing. The Griffith is nice too though much more "laid back" than the Tuscan. Someone who is used to driving a Corvette would feel right at home in a 5.0 liter Griffith.
     
  25. Re: elise V. s2000

    They may have used a "street" tire like a Pilot sport cup that is technically a street tire but is made for track day events. I still can't find the article to see if they used street tires, but I know they made a big deal out of beating the Hennesey viper's time and they listed seperate times for street tires and drag slicks in the Viper article. I wouldn't think they would compare the corvette drag slick time to the viper's street tire time.

    If I could get a TVR, I live in the US and they aren't allowed here, I would get a Tuscan. (Unless I won the lottery and they would actually sell me a speed 12).
     

Share This Page