Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- However on all new 0-100-0 test ABS cars win. --- No, they don't... You lose again... In the July 30th, 2003 issue of Autocar magazine, here are some example times for cars braking from 100mph to a dead stop: With ABS: Vauxhall VX220 Turbo: 4.72 seconds VW Golf: 4.69 seconds BMW M3: 4.61 seconds Lamborghini Murcielago: 4.41 seconds Subaru Impreza: 4.33 seconds. Without ABS: TVR Tuscan S: 4.15 seconds Noble M12: 4.11 seconds Pagani Zonda: 4.05 seconds Caterham R400: 3.79 seconds Caterham R500: 3.68 seconds
Re: The engine made it so expensive. Just want to point out that test is pretty useless to compare, the cars without the ABS are considerably lighter than the cars with the ABS with the exception of the Zonda.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. EVO does look at prices from the companies, companies sell cars to dealers you know, then the dealers useually put the price up some to make a profit. The LS1 is more efficient that the turbo4. Man with all the "low tech components" like navgational system, tire pressure senser, HUD, traction control, active handling, alluminum V8 weighing 1hp and 1tq/pound, hydrofromed steel frame with aluminum subframes, magnetic ride control, power everything, keyless entry, and other things why do people even buy these cars, i mean you can get like half of that stuff for double the price in european car Can you find me an article or any kind of proof that either of those people said that a 3000lbs car is not a sports car, or a sports car must weight X pounds? And even if you do come up with one, just because 2 people say something doesnt mean that the whole automotive world must obey it. If anyone would have say in whats a sports car or not it would have to be MB, being that they made the first car, or Ford for producing cars for the public.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. The only problem that I have with this is that I really dont know how good of a source that Autocar really is. Also I dont know how valid there test are, but you are talkign about one car magiazine going against what ever other car magazine is saying and what the NTSB have shown time and time again with their testing and what 99% of the worlds auto engineers are saying. But you just dont want to see it and Ive been jumping from source to source and yet I havnt found 1 soucre that have been able to repeat the results that you have shown here today. Not to mention the fact that with how light those Caterhams are I would expect them you have a 70-0 time of at least 130 feet but yet they are doing it in 174 feet for the test I found from 70 and from 60 124 feet which is about the average for economy sedans. But yet again you bring us this same test time after time again as to show how valid your point is. So you know what Im gonna do, Im gonna go to Autocar and look up what they have tested for alot of these cars to even see if their test validate what you are saying.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. I just went to autocar and I was let down, I coudlnt find a single road test on the website. So unless you can give me a link and I want more then 1 source becuase the way you are doing this is vary unscientific. So until then Im gonna assume that you are making up the results or Autocar really doesnt know what they are talking about. So IM looking at a Road and Track 0-100-0 test, I want to see what the None ABS cars have been able to pull compared to the ABS cars. Here goes a link to the site so that you and anyone else can look at it http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=663&page_number=1 Out of this group the only car to not have ABS braking is teh Saleen S7, there choice for this is they wanted teh car to be as close to a race car as possible. But to improve compitition most racing leagues have banned the use of ABS to help those racing teams that cant run them keep up with those that run them. So the Saleen S7 the lightest car in the group and should be the king of this 0-100-0, and according to you since they dont have ABS then its a no brainer. The Saleen S7 is using huge 15 inch disc in the front and 14 nich in the rear, these are alot larger then what Caterhams use and its alot bigger then what the other cars in this comparo are using. For sure its a shoe in. S7 100-0 5 seconds Lamborghini Murciélago 100-0 4.2 seconds In fact that Caterham 7 Superlight R did the 0-100-0 in 17.4 seconds IT tie the 1996 GS Corvette, While teh Ferrari Enzo did it in 11.7 seconds. But this is a vary unfair test being that all of the cars with ABS weigh so much more then the cars without them. In order to put these cars on equal ground with the Caterham is to mkae them a entire 2,000 pounds lighter. In fact the Enzo did this almost as fast as a motor cycle, now how it pulled that off I dont know but that is no small feat.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. Ok now I found another test that does 100-0 for many performance cars. And all of them are using ABS, and all of them are alot heavier then Caterhams so keep in mind that CAterham has a major major weight advantage. Mosler MT900 Photon 0-100-0: 10.98 seconds 60-0: 100 feet Dodge Viper SRT-10 0-100-0: 12.17 seconds 60-0: 97 feet Lamborghini Murcielago 0-100-0: 12.71 seconds 60-0: 111 feet Chevrolet Corvette Z06 0-100-0: 13.92 seconds 60-0: 105 feet Ferrari 575M Maranello 0-100-0: 13.94 seconds 60-0: 115 feet Mercedes-Benz CL55 AMG 0-100-0: 14.45 seconds 60-0: 113 feet Ford Mustang SVT Cobra 0-100-0: 15.67 seconds 60-0: 116 feet Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 0-100-0: 16.56 seconds 60-0: 106 feet Jaguar XKR 0-100-0: 17.14 seconds 60-0: 114 feet http://www.motortrend.com/features/scenes/112_0306_spdtest/index.html Take that into account when the 60-0 that I found for a Caterham which was a entire 600 pounds lighter then the lightest car in this group was about 130 feet form 60-0:, All of those ABS equiped cars were able to beat it whils some were nearly 3,000 pounds more then it. THat is a huge handicap.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. The only way to compare brakes between these cars that are so much heavier then the Caterham 500R their fastest lightest model is to compare braking force. This is the tricky part becuase this is where light weight places eye tricks. It pulled 1.44Gs in braking, so now lets compare that to the Viper ART-10. It pulled 1.18Gs of braking. Now you may say see I tiold you so, but this only tells part of the story. The Caterham would have had a test weight of around 1,200 pounds compared to the Viper which most likely had a test weight of 3,500 pounds. Based on 200 poudns drivers. So the Caterham pulled 1,728 pounds, thats how much force it was able to brake with. Becuase it was so light it only needed to brake with that much force. However the viper SRT-10 pulls 4,180 pounds, that is more then double the braking force of the Caterham. But this is for a reason, they most likely could have gotten more out of the Caterham however the tires would have most likely locked up being that the forces required to brake are ever changing. And Caterham doesnt know how to program ABS brake due to lack of experience. In fact if you put the Vipers ABS brakes and tires on the Caterham then it would be able tp pull a force that would rivel and possibly beat a Formula 1 car. From calculations it would pull something over 3Gs of braking force, but that shouldnt be that surprising since the Caterham's are lighter then F1 cars.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. I can argue this forever, we are seeing basic physics at work here. Acceleration is what we are seeing, The Caterham has less inertia then every road car in the world. This means that it is lighter then any road legal car in the world. So it doesnt take as much energy to get it accelerate to 100MPH with its 250HP motor in the R500 evo, and the same it doesnt take as much energy to accelerate back to 0MPH (de-accelerate). So it doesnt need as good of brakes, that is the key word in this one. One things for sure, when the new Mosler hits this years speeding it will most likely set the new 0-100-0 record being that it already did. It lost by vary little to a car that had much less inertia.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- Just want to point out that test is pretty useless to compare, the cars without the ABS are considerably lighter than the cars with the ABS with the exception of the Zonda. --- You think the Vauxhall is heavy at 930kg? I could also have mentioned the 1300kg Alfa 147GTA which took 4.39 seconds to make the 100-0 stop.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- Just want to point out that test is pretty useless to compare, the cars without the ABS are considerably lighter than the cars with the ABS with the exception of the Zonda. --- You think the Vauxhall is heavy at 930kg? I could also have mentioned the 1300kg Alfa 147GTA which took 4.39 seconds to make the 100-0 stop.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- EVO does look at prices from the companies, companies sell cars to dealers you know, then the dealers useually put the price up some to make a profit. --- Are you saying that EVO is quoting wholesale prices? --- The LS1 is more efficient that the turbo4. --- Obviously not. Anyone can see that even with a significantly less efficient drivetrain, the Mistubishi has mileage figures that are virtually identical to the Corvette. The Mitsubishi engine must, therefore be significantly more efficient. --- Can you find me an article or any kind of proof that either of those people said that a 3000lbs car is not a sports car, or a sports car must weight X pounds? And even if you do come up with one, just because 2 people say something doesnt mean that the whole automotive world must obey it. --- The two men built their considerable careers not only saying these things but acting on them as well and building cars which were not only light and powerful but which defined the sports car genre for the rest of the world. --- If anyone would have say in whats a sports car or not it would have to be MB, being that they made the first car, or Ford for producing cars for the public. --- Funny you think that since neither Mercedes nor Ford have any significant history of building sports cars unless you want to try to claim they do by bringing up the Mercedes 300SL from the 1950s or perhaps the Ford GT40 from the 1960s (which Ford has briefly resurrected) - both of which were limited-production racers. GM? The closest thing to a sports car that GM build is the Vauxhall VX-220/Opel Speedster but neither of those cars is available in the US. Why are you obsessed with trying to call the Corvette something it isn't. It is what it is, changing the label won't change the car. It is has its strengths and weaknesses like every other car in the world. Why do you try to imagine that its weaknesses don't exist or couldn't be fixed if GM put in some effort? With GM's resources, the Corvette could be a perfect 10, it is currently a 6.5 or maybe a 7 with the recent improvements to handling.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- but you are talkign about one car magiazine going against what ever other car magazine is saying and what the NTSB have shown time and time again with their testing and what 99% of the worlds auto engineers are saying --- Who gives a damn what the NTSB says? Since when are government agencies infallible? Since when are they anything but the exact opposite? And where do you get the figure that 99% of the world's auto engineers are saying that ABS reduces braking time? First of all, even if 99% of some group of people say something that is wrong - it is still wrong. At one time, 99% of the "experts" said the world was flat or that it was created in 4004BC or that it was the center of the universe. They were eventually proved wrong. Ask Gordon Murray about ABS. He designed what is generally considered to be the greatest car ever made and one which was built entirely to the goal of engineering perfection with no compromises for marketing or economics. Guess what? No ABS. Not for any reason other than the fact that the car would have been worse off with it. Ask Peter Wheeler, the owner of TVR. He has not only relied on outside testing results to determine the value of ABS for their vehicles but they have conducted internal tests as well with both traction-control and ABS. They have yet to find that either system improves the performance of their cars. Ergo, these useless toys have yet to appear on any TVR. Of course this may change in future but more likely because EU bureaucrats are threatening legislation that would require all new cars to be built with ABS and/or traction-control rather than because such systems improve the car. --- But yet again you bring us this same test time after time again as to show how valid your point is. --- Because Autocar's 0-100-0 is considered by many to be the definitive independent test of car performance in Britain.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. ROFL, ok I give up. you are more stubborn then me, and one day you will realize that you were wrong on this one. At least I hope you do. And I dont live in the UK and I dont read auto car, and are you saying that the NTSB and the auto insurance groups and alot of the auto maker are wrong. And that you are right, I still havnt seen anytihng in autocar that says that ABS cars are inferior to none ABS cars. So basicly you have everytihng and pyhsics going against you.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- The only way to compare brakes between these cars that are so much heavier then the Caterham 500R their fastest lightest model is to compare braking force. This is the tricky part becuase this is where light weight places eye tricks. It pulled 1.44Gs in braking, so now lets compare that to the Viper ART-10. It pulled 1.18Gs of braking. Now you may say see I tiold you so, but this only tells part of the story. The Caterham would have had a test weight of around 1,200 pounds compared to the Viper which most likely had a test weight of 3,500 pounds. Based on 200 poudns drivers. So the Caterham pulled 1,728 pounds, thats how much force it was able to brake with. Becuase it was so light it only needed to brake with that much force. However the viper SRT-10 pulls 4,180 pounds, that is more then double the braking force of the Caterham. But this is for a reason, they most likely could have gotten more out of the Caterham however the tires would have most likely locked up being that the forces required to brake are ever changing. And Caterham doesnt know how to program ABS brake due to lack of experience. In fact if you put the Vipers ABS brakes and tires on the Caterham then it would be able tp pull a force that would rivel and possibly beat a Formula 1 car. From calculations it would pull something over 3Gs of braking force, but that shouldnt be that surprising since the Caterham's are lighter then F1 cars. --- Nice attempt to play numbers games but it simply doesn't work this way. First of all, no one expects a 3000lb car to brake (or accelerate) as quickly as a top-of-the-line Caterham. So comparing the two is unfair to both cars. Second, in normalizing the braking-force according to weigtht, you are actually punishing the Caterham for being light and rewarding the Viper for being heavy since braking force is related to the amount of friction that the car can generate and friction generation is directly related to weight and the size of the tire contact patch. In other words, if you put the Viper's brakes and tires on a Caterham, it wouldn't brake nearly as well in reality as it should in theory because it isn't heavy enough to get the advantage of the big tires - it will only suffer the downside (i.e. tramlining, bump-steer, road-noise, etc...). A Caterham with Viper tires/brakes would, in addition to looking riciculous, squirm and slide horribly under heavy braking. If giant tires and brake calipers were the only thing required for exceptional braking, then every performance car would have them.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. Ok, EVO goes to chevy and says "hey how much is the corvette in europe?" Chevy says "The Corvette is X amount of dollars" EVO writes it in their magazine, i dont see why you cant understand this. Have you ever been to other dealerships before? Ive been to numerous ones where they highly overprice cars, up to $12,000 over MSRP, its called making a profit. Just think what you want about the engines, its not going to change the fact that the LS1 is more efficient. Like I said can you find an article where they say that? Its sounds like your assuming theses things... The Shelbys are hard core perfomance cars, with hardly any safty features in mind, and basically built to be a track car. They really have no intension of real road driving. Im bringing up the fact that Mercedes MADE THE FIRST CAR. Its there creation, and Ford marketed it to the public. Like i said before, if a car company makes a car, and calls it a sports car, and it classifies as a sports car than it is(corvette). I have never seen any professional racer, or professional non-bias (EVO) magazine call it a muscle car. Everyone knows its a sports car, its made for real world driving, and track racing, theres nothing wrong with that.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- you are more stubborn then me, and one day you will realize that you were wrong on this one. At least I hope you do. --- Maybe I am more stubborn - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, I doubt I will be proved wrong because all the tests I've seen and all the experience I have say the exact opposite. BTW, it isn't just my experience - more importantly, the experience of people like Murray and Wheeler I mentioned above who have more practical experience building high-performance cars than all the bureaucrats in the world put together. Don't forget Lotus, a company that has always been on the cutting-edge of performance-car design refused to put ABS on their Elise until they were forced to do so by US government agencies and even when they did, they designed the ABS so that it wouldn't operate in any but the most unusual situations by incorporating a three-second delay into the system. To be fair, the Esprit S4 and V8 did have ABS but the results of doing this (again, in response to pressure from the US government) were evidently enough to lead them to eschew the system for the Elise which was not compromised to meet the demands of the US DOT. Originally, Lotus hadn't planned to sell the Elise in the States, they were developing a larger, V-6 powered car for that market with all the gubbins they knew the Americans would demand (i.e. air-con, power everything, ABS, etc...) --- I still havnt seen anytihng in autocar that says that ABS cars are inferior to none ABS cars --- You mean other than their 0-100-0 tests. I tried to upload a scan of it yesterday but I couldn't. I'll try again... If I succeed, it will be attached to this message. If not... if you post an e-mail address I can send it to, I will be happy do so. --- So basicly you have everytihng and pyhsics going against you. --- Not true in either case. I have plenty on my side - inluding car-design experts whose names I mentioned above and the results of testing independent from the political corruption and pressure exerted on government agencies and insurance companies by the manufacturers of things like air-bags and ABS systems. Making certain that these systems are fitted to cars brings them more profit. Most car companies don't care, they just go along and pass the costs on to the consumer. The consumers don't care because some of them have bought into the marketing hype and many of those who haven't just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever".
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- Ok, EVO goes to chevy and says "hey how much is the corvette in europe?" Chevy says "The Corvette is X amount of dollars" EVO writes it in their magazine, i dont see why you cant understand this. --- Because what a Corvette sells for in dollars has nothing to do with what it sells for in Pounds or Euros. EVO can write what they like but at the end of the day, people who actually want to buy a Corvette are going to pay what the dealers charge. I don't see why you can't understand this. --- Just think what you want about the engines, its not going to change the fact that the LS1 is more efficient. --- It isn't a fact. I've proved otherwise. --- The Shelbys are hard core perfomance cars --- a.k.a. "sports cars". --- Im bringing up the fact that Mercedes MADE THE FIRST CAR. Its there creation, and Ford marketed it to the public. --- Which is all well and good but has nothing to do with the definition of a sports car. Neither of this companies have any real experience with or history with sports cars. Do you agree or disagree? --- Like i said before, if a car company makes a car, and calls it a sports car, and it classifies as a sports car than it is --- So if Chevy called the Suburban a "sports car" you'd try to argue that they were right? The Corvette is no more a sports car than the Suburban. --- Everyone knows its a sports car, its made for real world driving, and track racing, theres nothing wrong with that. --- Do you seriously want me to list all the things that "everyone knows" but aren't true? You have to do better than that.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. I dont see why you cant understand prices are going to be different from each dealership. You act like the dealership you posted has the "correct" pricing for a corvette, when its highly overpriced. You have only proved you assume bias things, try to have an open mind, not all V8s are gas guzzlers. Not all hard core perfomance cars are sports cars, especially by your "rules" of being a sports car. The Enzo, i would consider a hard core perfomance car, yet its "to heavy" to be a sports car weighing around 3000lbs. The Viper is a hard core peromance car, offering hardly any luxury items, and its too heavy to be a sports car too according to you. I would also call the Murcelago, Jaguar XJ220, Benz SLR McLaren, EVO RS, and other "heavy" cars hard core perfomance cars, but the weight would be the last thing keeping them from being sports cars. Ford had the GT40 in the 60s, and MB had the 300SLR in the 50s both being sports cars. So I would say both companies do have experience and history making sports cars. "and it classifies as a sports car than it is" Did you miss that part? 2 seats, IRS, perfomance oriented, and made to be a sports car, the suburban has non of these. The Corvette is as much of a sports car as an Elise or TVR, its just less striped down and made for real driving. There is no auto magazine that thinks a sports car must weight X amount of pounds. Evo calls 3000lbs cars sports cars, like the NSX, and they're 100% for light weight cars. Well the Corvette is a sports car according to Motortrend, Car and Driver, Sports Car International magazine, Road and Track, and every other magazine ive seen with the exception of EVO, but thats not because of weight.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- You act like the dealership you posted has the "correct" pricing for a corvette, when its highly overpriced. --- Overpriced according to whom? --- Not all hard core perfomance cars are sports cars --- That's true enough, but the fact remains that sports cars are, by definition, light weight. --- You have only proved you assume bias things, try to have an open mind, not all V8s are gas guzzlers. --- The fact remains that your claim that the LS6 engine is more efficient that the Mitsubishi (or any other 2.0 liter 4-pot engine) is utter rubbish. Admit that you were wrong and I was right. --- Ford had the GT40 in the 60s, and MB had the 300SLR in the 50s both being sports cars. So I would say both companies do have experience and history making sports cars. --- Ford didn't really build the GT40, it was designed and built by a small racing division out of their British subsidiary. And the 300SL was a momentary blip in Mercedes' history of building luxury cars, limousines, vans, trucks, just about everything but sports cars. --- The Corvette is as much of a sports car as an Elise or TVR, its just less striped down and made for real driving. --- By which you apparently mean that it is made for fat, lazy Americans who don't know how to drive (witness the automatic transmission in the Corvette, along with various eletronic driver's aids). --- Well the Corvette is a sports car according to ... every other magazine ive seen with the exception of EVO, but thats not because of weight. --- Really, why do you figure that is? --- I would also call the Murcelago, Jaguar XJ220, Benz SLR McLaren, EVO RS, and other "heavy" cars hard core perfomance cars --- You mean you'd call them "supercars"? Does the Evo RS realy belong in the same category as the Lambo, the SLR or XJ220? Also, despite its absolutely massive size, the XJ220 was actually rather light for its day. 1300kg for a car that was almost 16' long and almost 7' wide isn't bad at all.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. Oh my god...how many times to i have to go over this, chevy has a msrp in pounds or euros for the corvette. So the dealership overpriced the msrp of chevy, its very simple. Sure, light weight, but to be light weight you have to be comparing it to something... Ill admit im wrong when you show me some proof that the turbo "4 pot" is more efficient. You have to relize, the engine is turboed, and unless you dont want to go past idle your going to consume alot of gas. The GT40 was built within a branch of the Ford company, its still ford whether its made in the US or in europe. Sorry that the "lazy americans" like to be comfotable while driving. The Elise is a joke as far as comfortable driving for a long period of time. And if you can even fit a passenger in the car there wouldnt be enough room to breath. All the "lazy computer aids" as you call them are for saftey and comfortable driving. And like I said cars are made to sell, not everyone who buys a vette take them to the track and race them, and many people live in heavily populated areas with lots of stop and go traffic, where they rather not shift back and forth. Each car has there place, the Elise, according to Car and Driver and MotorTrend is a weekend car, definetly not something they would want to drive daily, being cramed and having no luxuries, or noise dampering materials. The Corvette is a car you can drive when ever you want, with space, comfort and performance. If your asking if EVO considers the Corvette a muscle car because of weight, than no. The BMW M3 is a sports car, according to EVO, along with other 3000+lbs cars like the NSX and porches. EVO calls the Corvette a muscle car because thats how they see american performance cars. It has a "big" V8 and scary acceleration. I threw the EVO RS in there simply because its a super hard core perfomance car, it comes with only the bare minimum. No A/C, no radio, no noise dampering materials, power nothing, removal of wing, removal of high dicharge headlamps, and its a great bang for the buck. XJ220 rather light for its day? The 1992 Corvette weighed 100lbs lighter than the XJ220, but thats heavy now that the corvette weighted that right? Super cars are sports cars, there just super.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- chevy has a msrp in pounds or euros for the corvette. So the dealership overpriced the msrp of chevy, its very simple. --- And how much control do they have over things like import duties and local tax requirements? MSRP doesn't include things like tax, license and transportation charges, now does it? Not even in the US... Plus, no one pays MSRP anyway. They either pay less if the car is being discounted or they pay more if it isn't. --- Sure, light weight, but to be light weight you have to be comparing it to something... --- Yeah, the current target weight for a sports car is around 1200kg or 2640lbs and there are lots of companies that come close to the magic 1000kg figure or even dip into three figures. --- Ill admit im wrong when you show me some proof that the turbo "4 pot" is more efficient. --- You've supplied the proof yourself. Look at the mileage figures. With a much shorter-geared rear-end the Mitsubishi you mentioned gets virtually the same mileage as the very long-geared Corvette. If they were geared identically, the Corvette couldn't hold a candle to it. Ergo, the Corvette's engine is less efficient than the Mitsubishi's. And that's before we consider other factors like the fuel-guzzling 4WD drivetrain. --- The GT40 was built within a branch of the Ford company, its still ford whether its made in the US or in europe. --- Yeah, but it wasn't actually made by Ford's car-division, it was made by a wholly-owned subsidiary. --- The Elise is a joke as far as comfortable driving for a long period of time. --- I've driven an Elise and they are extrardinarily comfortable when you consider how spartan they look. The seat fits like a glove and for all the apparent delicacy of the thing, it is as tough as an old boot. --- And if you can even fit a passenger in the car there wouldnt be enough room to breath. --- I'm a whisker shy of six feet and tip the scales at nearly 200lbs and i've driven passengers in the Elise who were bigger than me. Granted we were rubbing shoulders on the corners but there is more room in the little beastie than you seem to think. --- All the "lazy computer aids" as you call them are for saftey and comfortable driving. --- No, actually, they aren't. ABS, traction-control, stability-control and all the rest of the voodoo is for people who don't really know how all the pedals work. They have no business driving a powerful car. --- many people live in heavily populated areas with lots of stop and go traffic, where they rather not shift back and forth. --- Then they'd be stupid to buy a Corvette and drive it under those conditions. --- XJ220 rather light for its day? The 1992 Corvette weighed 100lbs lighter than the XJ220 --- A 2700lb Corvette?! That'll be the day. I've been through my automotive encyclopedia and the only time Corvettes dipped below 3000lbs was prior to 1968 and even then they were 2800+. Once the "Shark" model was released weight went over three grand and never went back. The late 70s were the porkiest with weight coming in at 3400bs (1545kg). And in any case, no Corvette ever made has even come close to the size of the XJ220 and my orginal point was that it is a huge car - wider even than the Lamborghini Diablo and significantly longer.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. MSRP does include transportation costs when the manufacturer calculates it in. When EVO had a Z06 that was imported it cost £50,000 which is about 60,000USD, thats only 10,000USD over the price of a Z06. Quote from EVO "Unfortunately the car(corvette) would cost rather more than the £34,000 LHD already available here." Available here..... Where did you get this "current target weight"? Its obveous that the lighter the car the better in handling and speed, but you have to consider ride quality, stability, and luxury, this is a road car too. According to every reliable sorce ive seen the XJ220 weighed 3241 lbs in 1993, thats more than the 1993 Corvette weighing 3120lbs. You said so yourself that the mitsu 4 should get gas milage like a economy car without the turbo running, at these low RPMs there would be very little to no boost in the engine. Despite the gear ratios the LS1/LS6 produces more power(hence more combustion) and there fore consumes for fuel at the lower RPMs. There are too many figures to compare with just the EPA the car itself gets, let alone the engine. As far as the passanger comfort in the new Elise, Car and Driver said "no pavement irregularity is too small to over look, and on bad stretches occupants take a beating." Also complaining that the interior noise level was "overpowering" with the "engine noise, wind, and all sorts of resonances from the aluminum tub." And the passangers seat is about two-thirds the size of the drivers seat and lacks fore and aft adjustibility. "Weekends-that's what the Elise is all about. As for a daily driver, fuhgedaboudit." ABS is for saftey, and i havent heard any complaints from any magazines. MotorTrend was happy that the 2005 Elise is getting ABS for the US market, if it was bad why would thay want it? Traction control again, is for saftey and comfort. Rain and snow, youll want some kind of traction control with a quick car. If you noticed the more luxury items the vette gets the heavier it is, and more it sells. Like i said not everyone wants a full blown perfomance car, some like to beable to comfortable drive them on the street, not that there is anything wrong with hard core performance cars, i actually prefer them.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- MSRP does include transportation costs when the manufacturer calculates it in. When EVO had a Z06 that was imported it cost £50,000 which is about 60,000USD, thats only 10,000USD over the price of a Z06 --- Have you never heard the phrase "Tax, license and destination charges extra" right after the MSRP? Also, I don't know where you get your Dollar/Pound exchange rate. Currently, it stand at $1.8319 to the pount. Therefore, your £50,000 price tag is actually equivalent to $91,595. Your figures put the exchange rate at $1.20 to the pound which is where it should be but thanks to the idiot Bush in the White House at the moment, the dollar is in the toilet. Also, that import price would have to include things like licensing costs, SVA certification costs (since the Corvette isn't officially sold in the UK, it has to be approved for road use and that costs a few quid) and the VAT which you can think of as a 17.5% sales tax. Thats why there is a such a big difference in price. --- Its obveous that the lighter the car the better in handling and speed, but you have to consider ride quality, stability, and luxury, this is a road car too. --- But you're arguing about it being a sports car. Luxury isn't a consideration for sports cars. There is a name for luxurious sports cars: "GT". Admittedly, it is more difficult to make a lighter car ride as well as a heavy one. Difficult but not impossible - though admittedly beyond Chevy's "build it just good enough to get it out the door" philosophy. --- According to every reliable sorce ive seen the XJ220 weighed 3241 lbs in 1993, thats more than the 1993 Corvette weighing 3120lbs. --- Your "reliable sources"... aren't. Depending on the model, the XJ220 weighed anywhere from 2300lbs to 3000lbs. The early, original XJ220s weighed in the neighborhood of 2600lbs. --- As far as the passanger comfort in the new Elise, Car and Driver said "no pavement irregularity is too small to over look, and on bad stretches occupants take a beating." Also complaining that the interior noise level was "overpowering" with the "engine noise, wind, and all sorts of resonances from the aluminum tub." And the passangers seat is about two-thirds the size of the drivers seat and lacks fore and aft adjustibility. "Weekends-that's what the Elise is all about. As for a daily driver, fuhgedaboudit." --- This sounds like the opinion of someone used to a Lincon towncar. Yes, compared to something like that, the ride is harsh but then I've heard the same criticism of the Corvette. Some people like their cars to drive like an overstuffed sofa. As for interior noice, even before they added the exhaust valve then closes at low revs to dampen engine noise and opens at higher revs to let the engine roar, it wasn't "overpowering" compared with something like the Honda S2000. And nowdays it is reportedy much better though I have yet to drive either a 111S or 111R (the two new models with this new feature). None of the cars I've seen have had different sized seats though the passenger seat isn't adjustible, that much is true. But think about it, does the passenger seat NEED to be adjustable in a two-seater? Of course not. Adding the mechanism just makes the car heavier. I grant you, to have an Elise as your only car and to commite in it daily would require a sincere love of the car when you consider how tricky it is to get in and out of and how vulnerable you'd feel in a rush-hour crush surrounded by SUVs - imagine Holly Hunter in a NFL huddle. But it is certainly possible. --- ABS is for saftey, and i havent heard any complaints from any magazines. MotorTrend was happy that the 2005 Elise is getting ABS for the US market, if it was bad why would thay want it? --- ABS has nothing to do with safety. It is all about marketing hype. It is easy for marketing weasels to portray it as a "safety feature" but if you look closely at what it is and how it works, their arguments fall to pieces. What it really is, is a way for lazy car manufacturers to get out of spending the time and money designing their cars to brake properly. Funny you mention the Elise's ABS. Lotus knew from their experience with ABS on the Esprit that the system hurts more than it helps with the kinds of cars that Lotus build and so they never offered ABS with the Elise even as an option and the cars sold like hotcakes. Yet, when the time came to send the car to the US, they knew they'd have to make concessions to the US market but didn't want to alienate the European purists who prefer their cars without ABS. Know what they did? They engineered a three second delay into the ABS system on the Elise. It doesn't kick in for three whole seconds. This allows trackday drivers to still use the brakes to slide the rear end on fast corners. The thing of it is that vast majority ofo panic stops in the real world don't take three seconds. So what Lotus did is invent the perfect ABS system. It is installed in the car so that when some Volvo-driving weenie has a midlife crisis and wants to buy an Elise, he can feel warm and fuzzy about his car. But, more importantly, when he slams on the brakes, he can stop more quickly than he could with ABS because the Elise's chassis and brakes are designed to brake with optimum effect. --- Traction control again, is for saftey and comfort. Rain and snow, youll want some kind of traction control with a quick car. --- No, traction control is for idiots who can't control their right foot. These people don't want a throttle, they want a 'go button' they can push with their foot which says to the car "go as fast as you can without spinning the wheels because I'm too stupid/lazy to figure out how to control wheelspin". BTW, it is absolutely possible to drive a powerful car safely in rain and even snow. It simply requires discipline. Personally, I'd argue that someone who lacks this discipline shouldn't be in a powerful car regardless of the weather conditions. These sorts of people don't want a performance car, they want a chauffeur. Think about who pioneered this sort of technology: Porsche - for their 911s. This is the car of choice for hairdressers, celebrities, yuppies and middle-aged suburban professionals who start taking karate classes, getting their ears waxed and banging their 21 year-old secretaries. These aren't demographics known for their driving skills. --- If you noticed the more luxury items the vette gets the heavier it is, and more it sells. Like i said not everyone wants a full blown perfomance car, some like to beable to comfortable drive them on the street, not that there is anything wrong with hard core performance cars, i actually prefer them. --- I understand that. The same could be said of the 911. Porsche make a few stripped out versions of the 911 that appeal to real performance car afficianados but these tend not to sell that well. But seriously, wouldn't it be nice if just one American car manufacturer made something akin to a TVR? I'm talking about a true sports car. Oh yeah, it would also have a "valet key" that would limit the power, max revs and speed of the car not only for valet parking but if the owner of the car wanted to loan it to their teenage kids to go out on a date or something.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. Tax and license shouldnt be $10-20,000 over the retail price. I just did a search and found a yahoo currency converter, http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=50000&from=EUR&to=USD&submit=Convert Where did you get your figures from? So sports cars shouldnt be luxurious at all now? Then I guess TVR doesnt make sports cars, being that they are pretty luxurious. The interior is nice, and i hear the quality of it is good. The Elise, having an option of leather, and other luxurious things then is not a sports car. Nobles have nice interior with luxurious features. Theres a fine line between sports cars and track cars... Face it, cars are made to sell, and manufacturers do what they can to help them sell, including luxurious features. Chevy's "build it just good enough to get it out the door" philosophy was only for compact cars like the cavalier, and has stoped since Bob Lutz became GM's vice chair man. There new cars have been review as great cars, with no problems. Lotus hasnt had the best repution for quality, or reliability, so i wouldnt talk. The XJ220S TWR weighed 2315lbs, but im talking about the XJ220. http://www.fast-autos.net/jaguar/jaguarxj220.html http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv?file=car.mv&num=878 http://www.supercars.net/cars/1993@$Jaguar@$XJ220g.html http://www.maximum-cars.com/Cars/Car.php?carnumber=486 Find a site that states the XJ220 weighed under 3000lbs. The Elise was being compared to other small cars, like the S2000, miata, corba replica, and caterham. And youve obveously never been in a Corvette (dont bother saying you have) because they are extremely roomy, and very comfortable. Does there even NEED to be a passenger seat? Does there NEED to be a luxur option? Does the car NEED agressive styling? Of course not it would make the car heavier.... Cars are made to sell, thats all im going to say. With Elise's "perfect" brakes than why cant it stop sooner than a "heavy" Corvette Z06? In Motor Trends testing the Z06 did 70-0mph in 152ft, while the Elise's perfect brakes only managed a 160ft stop. Chevy knows drifting/powersliding is not the fastest way to take corners, actually handling them is. When your brakes lock up you can easily loose control, any smart manufacturer knows this, and for saftey precautions put ABS on their cars. Instead of wasting time and money on the "perfect" brakes and frame setup, why not have the same effect on your car for a fraction of the cost? So while the Elise is drifting through corners loosing speed the Z06 will actually be handling through them gaining speed. Drifting is not handling, you dont want to slide around... Hair dressers driving 911s??? Those are some wealthy hair dressers... Most of the yuppies, and hair dressers are driving what you would consider a sports car, a small car thats "cute", like the S2000 or the miata. I have yet to see a hair dresser driving a nice car. Traction control, whether you like it or not, is for saftey. When you want to accelerate the hardest you take it off, everyone who has a car with t/c knows this. You take it off when you want to go racing on a track or the drag strip, its strictly for street driving. Im not sure what your getting at with the valet key, but the Corvette Zr1 had this. And with the "technologically advanced" lotus designed engine it weighted the most a corvette has ever weighed, and still didnt produce as much power as an LS6. As for keeping up with TVRs ever heard of Mosler, Saleen S7, or Ford GT? Even the Z06 and Viper SRT-10 will spank some TVRs.
Re: The engine made it so expensive. --- Tax and license shouldnt be $10-20,000 over the retail price --- I agree that they shouldn't be. But they are. Oh yeah, and don't forget import duties. --- I just did a search and found a yahoo currency converter, http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=50000&from=EUR&to=USD&submit=Convert Where did you get your figures from? --- Dude, that's the exchange rate for Euros, we were talking about Pounds. p.s. doesn't it suck that the dollar is so weak? The Euro should be worth about 75¢. --- So sports cars shouldnt be luxurious at all now? Then I guess TVR doesnt make sports cars, being that they are pretty luxurious. The interior is nice, and i hear the quality of it is good. The Elise, having an option of leather, and other luxurious things then is not a sports car. Nobles have nice interior with luxurious features. --- I guess it depends on what you mean by luxury. A car can have a leather interior without putting on too much weight. Actually, I wonder where all that extra weight in Corvettes comes from. --- Chevy's "build it just good enough to get it out the door" philosophy was only for compact cars like the cavalier, and has stoped since Bob Lutz became GM's vice chair man. --- Reallly? When do you figure he's going to start improving things? --- Lotus hasnt had the best repution for quality, or reliability, so i wouldnt talk. --- Lotus' reputation had more to do with the tendency of their owners to only use the cars occasionally. Those who use them as daily drivers routinely put 100,000 miles and more on them. --- The Elise was being compared to other small cars, like the S2000, miata, corba replica, and caterham. And youve obveously never been in a Corvette (dont bother saying you have) because they are extremely roomy, and very comfortable. --- I never said they weren't roomy and comfortable. And yes, I have not only ridden in many different Corvettes from the 60s and 70s as well as more modern models - but I have driven them as well. I've never owned one but that's only because they're too crude for my taste. Who drink Gallo screwtop when you're used to Montrachet? --- In Motor Trends testing the Z06 did 70-0mph in 152ft, while the Elise's perfect brakes only managed a 160ft stop. --- Hmmm, maybe they had one where the ABS kicked in immediately instead of waiting three seconds. Don't forget, the US-spec Elise has ABS but the car wasn't designed for it. --- Chevy knows drifting/powersliding is not the fastest way to take corners --- It depends on the corner. --- When your brakes lock up you can easily loose control, any smart manufacturer knows this --- Thats why the smart ones design their brakes so they work properly. The lazy ones just slap ABS on them and make do. --- Instead of wasting time and money on the "perfect" brakes and frame setup, why not have the same effect on your car for a fraction of the cost? --- Because it doesn't. Do you understand how ABS works? It doesn't actually improve the performance of the brakes. All it does is prevent the wheels from locking even when the driver is pressing the pedal hard enough to do it. When the system senses one (or more) of the wheels locking, it releases the brakes for that wheel until it starts to spin again and the reapplys the brake. It is just an automatic cadence-braking system. Don't you think it would be better to just make the wheels less prone to lockup? --- So while the Elise is drifting through corners loosing speed the Z06 will actually be handling through them gaining speed. --- Really? Will all the extra weight, the Corvette will have a harder time maintaining grip through corners. What's worse, when that grip runs out, the car is harder to control. --- Hair dressers driving 911s??? Those are some wealthy hair dressers... --- Ever gotten your hair cut in one of those high-end places in LA, New York or San Francisco (or London or Paris)? Anyone who gets paid $200 (or more) for a haircut is going to have no trouble buying a 911. --- Traction control, whether you like it or not, is for saftey. --- Why? Because you say it is? --- When you want to accelerate the hardest you take it off, everyone who has a car with t/c knows this. You take it off when you want to go racing on a track or the drag strip, its strictly for street driving. --- Let me ask you, what do you think TC does? If you agree that when you want to drive fast you take it off, what purpose do you think it serves - how do you think it works? --- Im not sure what your getting at with the valet key, but the Corvette Zr1 had this. --- Yeah, and it was a good idea. --- And with the "technologically advanced" lotus designed engine it weighted the most a corvette has ever weighed --- --- And with the "technologically advanced" lotus designed engine it weighted the most a corvette has ever weighed --- What makes you think any of that extra weight was from the engine? --- and still didnt produce as much power as an LS6 --- Nice try. The LT5 is more than ten years old. Compared to the OHV Corvette engines of the day, it produced more power even in the low state of tune imposed on it by Chevy for its release. I remember reading that Lotus' design was intended for far more than the 405bhp the production engine produced. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 460bhp if they wanted to stay within Chevy's longevity specs. But Chevy were squeamish about releasing a car with that much power. I guess they figured 405bhp was "good enough". Typical. --- As for keeping up with TVRs ever heard of Mosler, Saleen S7, or Ford GT? --- Yeah, ever seen their price tags? --- Even the Z06 and Viper SRT-10 will spank some TVRs --- Which TVRs. Certainly not any in the current range. Even the least powerful TVR in production right now, the T350C, will beat a Lamborghini and a Pagani Zonda around a track. There is a reason for that. Power:weight ratio and handing. Handing isn't easy to quantify but power:weight sure is. T350C - 350bhp/1070kg = 327bhp/ton Viper - 500bhp/1533kg - 326bhp/ton Z06 - 405bhp/1414kg = 286bhp/ton Now, you were saying something about a spanking?