The engine made it so expensive.

Discussion in '1993 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe ZR1' started by hondalover, Jun 16, 2003.

  1. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    I thought we were also talking about euros, my bad. Yeah it does suck, but you cant win 'em all.

    All the extra weight in the Corvette would be the hi-tech computer crap, and there not trying to use the lightest materials out there too, they need light ones that are affordable.

    Well hes doing something right being that chevy cars are the highest selling cars on the market currently. The new caviler replacement, the cobalt is said to be a very big improvement and the fit and finish is excellent.

    Ive always heard complaints about lotuse's reliability. Both C&D and MT mentioned this in their articles on the 05 Elise.

    The only corner drifting would help in would be something like a hair pin turn, and thats only because cars dont have the technology to grip through tight turns like that with speed.

    Oh, I thought you were talking about the "average" hair dressers, yes in that case, they would probably be driving 911s, or most likley Escalades.

    Well Ill tell you this, T/C doesnt help acceleration, it slows the car down. Think about it more grip=more saftey.

    Ive read that the LT5 was a good deal heavier than the LT1, and the LS1 is much lighter than the LT1. Most of the weight came from the engine.

    Why spend more money to make more power when you can save money and still sell the car just as well? In that case I guess Lotus thought it was "good enough" that the Elise would have only 190hp. Not to mention using a celica engine, typical. BTW it produced 385hp in its first few years, and 400hp in its later years.

    TVRs wont be cheap in the US, a Mosler MT900 is $160K brand new, the GT is 140K, and the Saleen S7 is close to half a mil, but will keep up with an Enzo, if not beat it.

    There are no head-to-head test that I have found comparing a TVR to a Z06 or Viper, other than when the Z06 was in the same test as the Tuscan S, but there were no track numbers. Ill look for tests that are as close as possible. I would be surprised to see the Cerbera, or Griffith take a Z06 or Viper though.
     
  2. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    All the extra weight in the Corvette would be the hi-tech computer crap, and there not trying to use the lightest materials out there too, they need light ones that are affordable.
    ---

    A half ton of computer equipment? Where is it all? And aren't computers supposed to be light nowdays?


    As for lightweight materials. TVR uses the same construction materials for their cars: steel, fiberglass, aluminum allow, leather, etc...


    ---
    Ive always heard complaints about lotuse's reliability. Both C&D and MT mentioned this in their articles on the 05 Elise.
    ---

    Yeah, its the old story. It is a combination of Lotus having some legitimate problems with fit and finish as all companies who design and hand-build cars on a shoe-string budget do. Also, up until the very end of his career in the early 80s, Colin Chapman just couldn't believe that any sports car could accumulate more than 20k-30k miles in its lifetime and he built cars to that philosophy. Lotus cars from the 60s and 70s were notorious for having major components wear out after this sort of use. The cars were so much fun to drive they got this kind of mileage after only a few years.

    Also, even after they had adjusted their view of the proper lifespan of a car, Lotus had problems with people buying them as 3rd or 4th cars and only running them occasionally. Another of Chapman's ego-centric quirks was that he was a slightly-built man and he designed his cars to fit him. Problem is that there are a lot of people out there who were bigger than him and found that squeezing into a Lotus on a daily-basis wasn't the most appealing of prospects.

    Anyway, the end result was that the cars didn't get regular use and that plays hell with the reliability of any finely-honed sports car.


    ---
    In that case I guess Lotus thought it was "good enough" that the Elise would have only 190hp
    ---

    Lotus has cash-flow problems. They would love nothing more than to have a 300bhp Elise, especially now that the Esprit has been retired. In fact, I seem to recall hearing that they're working on a forced-induction engine based on the Toyota that will be good for about that. But it won't be coming right away as they're still limping along after spending all that money to federalize the Elise (which I still think was a mistake).



    ---
    TVRs wont be cheap in the US
    ---

    I doubt TVRs will ever be sold in the US unless either Peter Wheeler sells the company or some billionaire American TVR-lover steps up and works out an agreement with Wheeler to build a US fabrication plant and manufacture the cars locally under license.

    In which case, you're right, they'll be expensive. There are only two possibilities - either TVR engines have to be certified by the EPA which will cost millions. Or else they'd have to buy a pre-certified engine from someone else but there is a problem: No one makes a straight-six that is comparable in size and power output to the AJP6. So they'll have to figure out a way to modify the engine without requiring re-certification and that will be VERY expensive.

    However, if some US car-lover with Washington connections gets off their ass and pushed through a law that allows private importation of uncertified cars for use on public roads provided they can pass the same equipment/emission tests as a kit-car would, then TVR has a chance of coming to the US and being affordable.

    Think about it. If the dollar/pound exchange rate was where it should be and you could bring a TVR into the states for the cost of the car plus shipping (tax and license extra, as usual) then brand-new cars would start at about $39,000 - allowing about two grand for the transport. Not a bad price considering the performance. About ten grand cheaper than a Z06 that gives comparable performance.


    ---
    and the Saleen S7 is close to half a mil, but will keep up with an Enzo, if not beat it.
    ---

    According to "Sports and GT Cars" magazine, the S7 won't do either one.

    From 0-60, the cars are roughly equal (Enzo 3.28/S7 3.34) but after that the Enzo simply walks away. 0-100 in 6.6 as opposed to 8.9 for the S7. 11.1 sees the Enzo though the standing quarter while the S7 takes 11.9.

    Braking is the same story: 80-0 in 188ft for the Enzo and 230ft for the S7. All of that in spite of the fact that the Enzo is heavier

    I mean, there's no shame in losing out to an Enzo and even coming as close as the S7 did is a creditable achievement. But it isn't reasonable to expect a bunch of engineers in Orange County to outdo one of the world's greatest car makers especially when they're building a "money is no object" car.

    ---
    I would be surprised to see the Cerbera, or Griffith take a Z06 or Viper though.
    ---

    I'd be surprised to see a Griffith take a Viper as well - considering the latter is a much more powerful car.


    But a 4.5 Cerbera Red Rose (which is the more appropriate comparison) I would expect to humble both a Corvette and Viper as the result of its much better power:weight ratio and much lower overall weight. This combination is a hard one to beat.

    The Cerbera makes 35bhp more than the Corvette and weighs half-a-ton less. How can you seriously expect the Cerbie to not give it a spanking? The Viper is at less of a disadvantage but it still hampered by its weight even though it has more power.

    Even the baby of the range, the T350C outclasses both the Corvette and Viper in power:weight, but the Cerbera 4.5RR simply thrashes the both of them.
     
  3. #103 DragStrip, Jun 11, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    A half ton? I was thinking more like 500lbs... Being that the C5R weighs about 500lbs lighter and is striped of most computer aids, and some luxury items.

    TVR may use the same frame, body and seat lining as the vette, but the vette has more electronics, saftey features, and luxury items. Not only that not too long ago i read an article that a TVR's (I think its was the Cerbera)weight was underrated and it weighed 200lbs heavier than the claimed weight (it also had a full gas tank).

    One thing mentioned in the C&D article was that they experienced problems with the celica engine, and were not sure how to work around it. They assumed it had to do with the oil temperature and added an engine-oil cooler.

    Id love to see a tubo elise, BTW theres been talk that the Esprit was coming back out in 2006, heres the concept http://www.carbc.com/Car-News-752.html


    Yeah i doubt TVR will be sold in the states, that would be nice though. I wouldnt mind seeing a few on the road every once in a while.

    C&D tested the Enzo and the S7 stats are as followed
    S7
    0-60 3.3
    0-100 7.6
    1/4 mile 11.6

    Enzo
    0-60 3.3
    0-100 6.6
    1/4 11.2


    The 2004 S7 stats
    0-60 2.9
    0-100 6.5
    1/4 mile 10.8

    C&D from 70mph-0 got 156 S7, and 151 for the Enzo.
    It seems the S7 kept up with the Enzo quite nicley in this test.
    Motor Trend was able to pull off an 11.3 quarter in the 03 S7, but their accleration times to 60 and 100 were a little slower than C&D.
    A reliable site states faster times for the S7, but i cant find any proof, im going to ask for a sorce about that.
     
  4. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    A half ton? I was thinking more like 500lbs... Being that the C5R weighs about 500lbs lighter and is striped of most computer aids, and some luxury items.
    ---

    But we weren't talking about the C5R, we were talking about the Z06.


    ---
    TVR may use the same frame, body and seat lining as the vette
    ---

    Actually, it doesn't. Those components are unique to TVR. The materials are the same (steel, fiberglass and leather), but the design is very different. Maybe that is what you meant.

    The reason TVRs are so much lighter is that the use a tube-steel chassis with an integral safety-cage. Not only does this make the car much lighter but also safer for the occupant(s) in case of collisions. The curved fiberglass body panels are excellent at absorbing impatct and cushioning the shock of impatct like a crumple-zone.

    Early Corvettes use a ladder type chassis, I don't know if Chevy ever got around to updating the design, have they? Chevy still uses a ladder chassis in some of their other cars, I believe. Perhaps the Corvette as well.

    ---
    but the vette has more electronics, saftey features, and luxury items.
    ---

    How much do you think things like ABS processors weigh? Not a lot - a few pounds at most. Strip down a Corvette - yank the ABS, traction-control, the HUD and various pointless gizmos like that and you'll be lucky to shave 50lbs off the weight of the car.

    The Vette is heavier because the chassis and engine are heavier. That's where the weight is.


    ---
    Id love to see a tubo elise
    ---

    I'd much rather see a supercharged one. With a car that light, turbo-lag is would be a major pain - lots of problems trying to keep traction with when the turbo kicks in.


    ---
    BTW theres been talk that the Esprit was coming back out in 2006
    ---

    Yeah, I saw those pictures a while back - not bad looking. In keeping with the "E" theme, the Esprit project is code-names "Elvis" but I suspect they'll change it before they release the car. Rumor was that they were trying to work out a deal to use BMW's V8 engine from the M5.

    They're aso reportedly working on a 2+2 to sort of take the place of the cancelled M250 project.


    Regarding the S7 performance. The only test I've seen in print was Road&Track's "Sports and GT Cars 2004" issue which was the source for the numbers I quoted. It is was a pretty in-depth analysis of both cars.


    Sorry, I just don't buy a 0-100 time of 6.5 seconds for either car - especially for the S7. That's McLaren F1 performance and yet the S7 has less power and has to lug around more than 500bs of extra weight... sorry, something doesn't add up. Maybe the changed out the rear end so it would be good for sprints but rubbish for high-speed. But that doesn't seen likely either since even with standard gearing, the S7 will hit 63mph in 1st and 100mph in 2nd.


     
  5. #105 DragStrip, Jun 15, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    The point of me bringing up the C5R was that it is striped down, loosing about 500lbs, and weighing very close to a TVR. Im not sure what all was taken off the car though.

    I meant the materials used.

    As far as the chassis goes im pretty sure the C5 uses a "backbone" structure, as does the C6 "it takes its robust and real-world-validated backbone structure and enhances it with completely new suspension components." -C6
    Although the frame does resemble a ladder design
    C6
    [​IMG]]http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2005/images/Image9.jpg[/img][/url]
    ZR1 (C4) Here it look like a backbone stucture...
    [​IMG]]http://home.att.net/~ncmpics/CFCI4/ncm/ncm25.jpg[/img][/url]

    Do you think they changed the engine and chassis in the C5R? That was my point in brining it up. Its stripped down, but has the same frame, and engine(with mods of course) as the C5.
     
  6. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    The point of me bringing up the C5R was that it is striped down, loosing about 500lbs, and weighing very close to a TVR. Im not sure what all was taken off the car though...

    Do you think they changed the engine and chassis in the C5R? That was my point in brining it up. Its stripped down, but has the same frame, and engine(with mods of course) as the C5.
    ---

    My understanding of the C5R is that it isn't so much a "stripped down" Corvette C5 as it is a completely different car that has a cosmetic resemblance to the C5 (a slight one, according to the pictures I've seen here).

    It is apparently a race-only, limited edition built from carbon-fiber (which would certainly explain the weight difference), with a different engine, suspension, brakes, etc. from the street Corvette. Wasn't it built specifically for events like Le Mans?

    Was the C5R ever sold to the public? Was it ever street legal in any country? Did it share any components with production Corvettes?

    As far as I can tell, the last time a Corvette was offered with any kind of 427ci engine as a factory option was 1969.



     
  7. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    The reason for the light S7 being beat by the heavier Enzo in braking is becuase the Enzo has ABS and teh S7 doesnt.
     
  8. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    The reason for the light S7 being beat by the heavier Enzo in braking is becuase the Enzo has ABS and teh S7 doesnt.
    ---

    No, actually, it isn't. It is because the Enzo has better brakes - carbon composite or some such.
     
  9. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    No, there are only so much that useing those brakes can do. The Z06 Corvette out brakes the Enzo and does so with steel brakes, the only real difference is a lack of ABS brakes on the Saleen S7.





    Z06 Corvette

    12.6inch front/11.8inch rear

    60-0: 103 feet

    Enzo Ferrari

    15inch front/15 inch rear

    60-0: 109 feet

    Saleen S7

    15inch front/14 inch rear

    60-0: 120 feet

    SRT-10

    14inch front/14inch rear

    60-0: 97 feet

    The Saleen should brake the best out of this group but it doesnt why is that?

    and dont say that they do better becuase they have carbon brakes, only the Enzo has those. And the rest have smaller disc but the Corvette beat the Saleen by a large mergin. The S7 is the lightest in this group and most certainly doesnt have the worse brakes in this group but it performed the worse. why?

    Ok Im ready for your complete BS reason.
     
  10. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    Z06 Corvette

    12.6inch front/11.8inch rear

    60-0: 103 feet

    Enzo Ferrari

    15inch front/15 inch rear

    60-0: 109 feet

    Saleen S7

    15inch front/14 inch rear

    60-0: 120 feet

    SRT-10

    14inch front/14inch rear

    60-0: 97 feet

    The Saleen should brake the best out of this group but it doesnt why is that?
    ---



    Just having big disks doesn't mean the car will brake well. Just as having the biggest displacement engine doesn't mean you'll have the most horsepower.

    Size isn't the most important thing.

    With braking systems, the mechanism that coverts your foot pressure on the braking pedal into a force to stop the car is all important and has nothing to do with ABS. While it is true that an ABS system can compensate for a lack of engineering expertise or development.

    When you experience the brakes on the Lotus Elise (UK version) and any TVR, you'll understand. You'll also understand why the McLaren F1, which is widely considered to be the best engineered car ever built, doesn't have ABS.


    ---
    Ok Im ready for your complete BS reason
    ---

    That's fine, I've cast my pearls before swine before.
     
  11. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    There are important things to braking systems. The disc size are a vary important part of it, and the Mclaren F1 with a 60-0: of 127 feet. You call the F1 a greatly engineered car, alot of people disagree with you. So what if it can do 241MPH a Z06 Corvette can give it a run for its money on its race track.

    and I was not disapointed with your post at all. Not one bit of fact in it your post at all.
     
  12. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    You call the F1 a greatly engineered car, alot of people disagree with you.
    ---

    No one who knows what they're talking about.


    ---
    So what if it can do 241MPH a Z06 Corvette can give it a run for its money on its race track.
    ---

    What color is the sky in that fantasy world?
     
  13. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    Dont get me wrong the Mcleran F1 is a well engineered car but it was only built to go in a straight line vary well and fall short in braking and handling. The Z06 Corvette and the Z51 C6 Corvette have both ripped a sub 8 minute run on the Nurburgring. Im not sure of how fast the Mcleran F1 can do it in but the times that Ive seen for it put it at 8.30 seconds. The Mcleran F1 LM car on the other hand which tops out at 225MPH can handle alot better then the Mclaren F1.

     
  14. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    Dont get me wrong the Mcleran F1 is a well engineered car but it was only built to go in a straight line vary well and fall short in braking and handling
    ---

    That's pretty funny... Were you trying to be satirical?

    The F1 handles better than any Corvette could ever dream of doing and there isn't anything wrong with its brakes. A handful of whiny crybabies wish it had ABS despite the fact that Gordon Murray knew exactly what he was doing when he left out the electronic nannying.

    Yeah, sure there is a bit of body-roll but when you're sitting in the center of the car, it isn't really noticeable.

    Are you seriously telling me that a car like the Z06 which has a power:weight ratio of 286bhp/ton and takes 12.5 seconds to pull a standing quarter mile can seriously stand up to a car which has a p:w of 551bhp/ton and can pull a standing quarter in 11 seconds?

    The Z06 isn't a slow car by any means but why pretend that it is in anything like the same performance category as something like the F1?

    Even if you were able to locate of the original Corvette ZL-1s from the 1960s, they wouldn't stand a chance against the F1 and they'd easily eat the lunch of any Corvette made today.

    As for the Corvette on the 'Ring, I've got a video of a Lotus Elise keeping up with one. Granted it was the 190bhp sport model but that isn't bad for something powered by something that looks and sounds like a sewing-machine motor.

    Once Lotus gets finished tarting up that new Yamaha/Toyota engine they're sticking in the updated Elises (they're predicting upwards of 300bhp being possible) the Elise will become a Corvette and Viper eater.










     
  15. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    Oh I cant imagin the Corvette ever handling better then the Mclaren F1. But ti does.

    Mclaren F1

    .86Gs on the skid pad
    64.5MPH on teh slalom

    Z06 Corvette

    1.00Gs on teh skid pad
    70.3MPH on the slalom

    And the Z06 Corvette can also out brake the $1,000,000 "supercar" should also be a shocker. But wwith ABS this has happened, and the F1 like so many other cars that dont have ABS brakes dont have them off for better braking becuase ABS cars kill none ABS cars. Its the fact that not have those systems makes the car more true to a race car in which ABS have been banned. Many see it as racing should be more about the driver and less about the cars. This is why things like traction control and electronic luanch control is still an issue.

    But this leaves only one area in which the $1,000,000 kit car can beat the $50,000 Corvette in and that is acceleration and top speed. But wouldnt that make true for the Mclaren F1 what many people think about American performance cars, that they are only good for straight line use?

     
  16. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    Mclaren F1

    .86Gs on the skid pad
    64.5MPH on teh slalom

    Z06 Corvette

    1.00Gs on teh skid pad
    70.3MPH on the slalom
    ---

    As I never tire of reminding the Corvette geeks, handling isn't about skidpad and slalom numbers. That's grip. I don't know where you got your numbers for the F1 but you want to bet those were on period tires? Tire technology has come a long way in the last ten years.


    ---
    ABS cars kill none ABS cars
    ---

    No, actually, they don't. A properly set up car without ABS will brake faster than one with ABS. The trick is the proper set up. This takes time and costs money. Most big carmakers would rather just slap an ABS system on their cars and not bother. Plus, it looks better in the sales brochure. Most car buyers nowdays buy into the propaganda that ABS is a "safety" feature when, in reality, it is a band-aid fix for bad engineering.

    To be fair, ABS is of some use on heavy cars like Volvos, Mercedes and BMWs along with those moronic SUVs. Those cars, even with properly set-up brakes, will still need ABS to deal with the combination of high weight and hydraulic brake-assist which combine to make it easy to lock up the wheels.

    In reality, ABS should be banned from all road-going cars and strict braking-performance requirements should be instituted. This would prevent manufacturers from putting these dangerous tanks on the road. There is no excuse for any roadgoing car to weigh more than 1200kg.


    ---
    But this leaves only one area in which the $1,000,000 kit car can beat the $50,000 Corvette in and that is acceleration and top speed. ---

    First, how do you figure the McLaren is a "kit car"?

    Second, there are a whole raft of areas in which the McLaren slaughters the Corvette. But, that is hardly surprising since the F1 oozes engineering excellence from every pore while the Corvette is the epitome of mass-produced Detroit mediocrity.

    Yeah, so the Z06 is grippier. So what? That isn't surprising since it has a lot more weight and more modern tires than the F1. The Viper grips pretty well too but it still handles atrociously. Face it, Detroit has never built a car renowned for its handling, at least not in significant numbers. The Ford GT is pretty good but it is a limited-production "special".

    The idea that you think any Corvette can even come close to the F1 around the 'Ring is laughable.

    By the way, ABS and Traction-Control are for wimps and yuppie weasels who want to pretend they're Michael Schumacher while driving to the office. These things are dangerous because they allow people who can't drive to pretend they can handle a powerful car.
     
  17. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    The only other things to handling are cheractoristics and stability, Formula one cars pull 3.0+Gs on the skid pad. That is evidence that they handle good, skid pad shows how much speed a car can take through a corner while slalom speed shows how quickly a car can change directions. These are scientific facts, and not even you can change them. But you still will, and wow not only are you really wrong and it is obvious to almost everyone you are also vary stubborn as well.

    You mention ABS as being a band aid for poor engineering then why is it that heavier cars with inferior brakes equiped with ABS can out brake lighter cars with superior brakes and thousands of man hours going into their setup. ABS wasnt created by some car company looking to make money, ABS was created to solve a major safety issue. And yes that has to do with keeping a car steerable and greatly reducing its stopping distance in slick conditions. At back then non ABS cars were owning ABS equiped cars in dry pavement conditions. Now that ABS has advanced so far that the non ABS cars can no longer compete with the ABS cars. And no matter how much you try to lie to yuorself that will never change. Yes I admit that it is sad that the days were those that knew how to drive the best had a major advantage over those that dont but time is changeing. electronic luanch control in F1 racing. Driveby wire and electronic throttles are the thing of today. Manuels that are both computer controled and have 2 clutchs that shift in almost no time flat leave the best race car drivers way behind in shifting. The technology is changing but yet you are not, you will die in the car world and you dont even know this. Not much room for those that build and fix vintage style modern sportscars.

    And from best I hear the Mclaren F1 doesnt have ABS or brake booster to save weight and noting more.
     
  18. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    Formula one cars pull 3.0+Gs on the skid pad.
    ---

    Yes, Formula One cars have lots of grip.


    ---
    That is evidence that they handle good, skid pad shows how much speed a car can take through a corner
    ---

    The skid-pad test only meaures steady-state cornering on a perfectly flat surface and since most real-world corners vary in angle as well as camber, the skid pad is about as accurate as the EPA mileage figures.

    ---
    while slalom speed shows how quickly a car can change directions
    ---

    Again, the slalom course is typically a series of regular directional changes which doesn't really measure real-world performance.


    ---
    it is obvious to almost everyone you are also vary stubborn as well
    ---

    Yes, how stubborn of my to cling to facts while some many others prefer to indulge in fantasy.


    ---
    You mention ABS as being a band aid for poor engineering then why is it that heavier cars with inferior brakes equiped with ABS can out brake lighter cars with superior brakes and thousands of man hours going into their setup.
    ---

    Nonsense. Last year's 0-100-0 shootout performed by Autocar magazine proves you wrong. The top performers were non-ABS equipped cars. Even lightweights with ABS like the Vauxhall VX-220 couldn't keep up.


    ---
    ABS wasnt created by some car company looking to make money, ABS was created to solve a major safety issue
    ---

    Not for cars, it wasn't. It was created in the 60s for the Concorde SST. Well, to be fair, it was originally invented for cars in the 1930s but it took the SST program to make it practical for real-world use and it wasn't until the late 70s that it was economical to add the system to mass-produced cars.


    ---
    And yes that has to do with keeping a car steerable and greatly reducing its stopping distance in slick conditions.
    ---

    ABS greatly *increases* braking distance on friable surfaces like snow and gravel where the locking of the wheels benefits braking. As for keeping a car steerable during "panic stops", that is a myth. If a person is sufficiently panicked t be unable to perform cadence-braking, how are they expected to be able to "stomp and steer"?

    Plus, even in a worst-case scenario, locked wheels have about 90% of the stopping ability that unlocked wheels would have in the same situation.

    ---
    Now that ABS has advanced so far that the non ABS cars can no longer compete with the ABS cars.
    ---

    That's rubbish. You talk about ABS as if it were a modern invention. As I pointed out earlier, it has been around in practice since the 1960s and was originally patented in 1936. It is also a very simple technology. All you have to do is set up sensors on each wheels which measure rotational speed and then when the brakes are applied and one wheel locks up, the system disengages the brakes long enough for the wheel to start moving again and then re-applies them. The concept hasn't "advanced" since it was invented. What *has* advanced is tire technology. Tires now have much more grip both in the dry and in the wet than they used to.


    ---
    Driveby wire and electronic throttles are the thing of today
    ---

    I have no problem with electronic throttle linkages - in fact they have certain advantages over the mechanical variety. What I object to are systems like ABS, traction-control, electric-stability enhancements and all the other things that let people pretend they can handle cars that they really can't. I know people who don't alter their driving habits in slippery conditions and when asked why, they say "but my car has anti-lock brakes" as if they get special dispensation from the laws of physics. These electronic nanny systems lull the credulous and uninformed into a false sense of security.




    I notice you forgot to explain why you consider the McLaren a "kit car".


    ---
    I hear the Mclaren F1 doesnt have ABS or brake booster to save weight and noting more
    ---

    Nonsense. They left off ABS because they knew the car would be better without it. The weight difference is negligible - a few pounds at most. The F1 has room for things like a stereo, first aid kit and full toolkit (as well as more cargo space than a Ford Fiesta), are you seriously saying that they wanted ABS and power-brakes but couldn't afford the extra weight?
     
  19. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    I do not have the energy and the will to argue with you, why would I try to let you see the truth about ABS. You bring up some auto car test in which a 1,000 pound car beat a 2,000 pound car in braking. What did you expect to happen with such a big weight difference, and you seem to fail to realize that in the 0-100-0 test half that test includes accelerating which the Caterhams great power to weight ratio gives it a great advantage.

    And why did the SRT-10 Viper pull from 100-0 a 3,300+ pound car do it in 3.87 seconds almost as fast as a 1,000 pound car. This should never ever happen unless A you are right about ABS and Caterham does a really crappy job on brake work or B I am right and the ABS brakes made all the difference. Other then those 1,000 pound and 1,200 pound cars the SRT-10 can out brake any of those ultra light sportscars from the UK that dont have ABS brakes.

    when it comes to cars and braking you have one major factor and that is momentum.

    Momentum: a property of a moving body that the body has by virtue of its mass and motion and that is equal to the product of the body's mass and velocity; broadly : a property of a moving body that determines the length of time required to bring it to rest when under the action of a constant force or

    The SRT-10 Viper has alot more momentum then the Caterham superlight R500 being that it weighs 3 times as much.

    2002 Caterham superlight R500 with a weight of 1,102 pounds has a momentum of 22,455 kg-m/s at 100MPH

    The Viper SRT-10 with a weight of 3,380 pounds has a momentum of 68,985 kg-m/s at 100MPH

    Notice the great gap in momentum, this is how the Caterham is able to beat the SRT-10 Viper in braking. The Caterham doesnt need nearly as great of brakes as the Viper needs to brake as good. This is only part of the formula, the fastest a car will stop depends on using the most braking force without locking up your tires. As you slow down the amount of brake pedal that you have to use in order to brake at 100% without locking up your tires changes fast. ABS keeps you right at that limit while no human can do that, A robotic driver can do that but no human can. And modern ABS systems modulate all 4 wheels independantly, you cant do that no where nearly as fast as ABS can. Maybe a robotic driver but you cant and no one can. This is why a 3,000 pound non ABS car will stop no where nearly as fast as a 3,000 pound ABS car and the SRT-10 almost stops as fast as the Caterham superlight R500. So if the Caterham has an extra 2,000 pounds do you really think that it can stop faster then the SRT-10 Viper?. The funny thing is that if Caterham was to create its own ABS system it would suck compared to the rest of the world.
     
  20. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    why would I try to let you see the truth about ABS
    ---

    Why indeed, when you don't know the truth yourself?


    ---
    You bring up some auto car test in which a 1,000 pound car beat a 2,000 pound car in braking
    ---

    You conveniently forget that the Vauxhall VX-220 has not only light weight (930kg) but excellent brakes - as well as ABS. It should be able to do better in braking than non-ABS cars of similar weight, wouldn't you say? Yet, it fails to do so. 4.72 seconds from 100-0. Yet, heavier cars without ABS like the Noble M12 (1080kg) and TVR Tuscan S (1100kg) knock almost a second off that time.

    ABS isn't that expensive or complex a technology for small-volume carmakers to add to their vehicles. They don't leave it off because they're cheap or lazy, they leave it off because their cars brake better without it.


    ---
    And why did the SRT-10 Viper pull from 100-0 a 3,300+ pound car do it in 3.87 seconds almost as fast as a 1,000 pound car
    ---

    Big brakes and grippy tires probably have something to do with the Viper's braking prowess. Wouldn't you say? After all, the best ABS computer in the world can't do anything with a 1500kg+ car going 100mph unless the tires can grip the road and the brake disks can grip the wheels.

    Incidentally, the bigger a car's tires get, the more weight the car needs to maintain traction. In the Viper's case, the higher weight allows it to use those giant tires more effectively. Granted, it would brake better if it were lighter and had smaller tires...

    ---
    when it comes to cars and braking you have one major factor and that is momentum.
    ---

    No, you have two major factors. One is the intertia (or "momentum" if you prefer) of the car and the other is ability of the braking system to act against that inertia.


    ---
    the fastest a car will stop depends on using the most braking force without locking up your tires.
    ---

    Not necessarily, it depends on the situation. In some cases (e.g. on friable surfaces like loose snow, dirt or gravel) fast braking depends on locking the wheels.


    ---
    And modern ABS systems modulate all 4 wheels independantly, you cant do that no where nearly as fast as ABS can.
    ---

    Actually, no one can manually modulate each of four wheels independently since there is only one brake pedal controlling the brakes to all four wheels. You really should learn what you're talking about before you start holding yourself out as some sort of expert on this stuff. Independent wheel modulation isn't really that big a deal. It's just another straw-man argument to make ABS look "cool".

    Plus, you really missed my point. I agree with you that heavy cars like the Viper require ABS to stop properly. You must have skipped over the part where I wrote that. My point is that ABS allows manufacturers to make their cars stupidly heavy and then still have them pass muster in the braking department.

    The use of ABS should be taxed heavily* in road cars and braking performance standards should be implemented - i.e. all cars should have a maximum braking distance and any car model that fails to brake within that distance shouldn't be certified street-legal.

    This would accomplish two important things.

    1. It would encourage car manufacturers to design and build lighter cars. In addition to being more fuel efficient, they would be safer in case of an accident.

    2. It would encourage people to learn to drive properly under non-optimal conditions. Nothing is more annoying than some moron who drives their Ford Explorer in the rain like they were driving a Mazda Miata on a sunny day and who uses as their excuse "Well, I've got ABS so I can stop fast if I need to" - or these idiots who plant themselves 15' off my rear bumper on a rain-soaked freeway. If I was an ambulance-chaser, I'd slam on my brakes, let them plow into me and then retire on my insurance settlement.



    *I'm talking about a tax which works rather like the "gas-guzzler tax". Each electronic "nanny" installed on a car should have a tax associated with it. For example:

    ABS: $2,000
    Electronic Stability/handling Control: $3,000 each
    Traction-Control: $5,000


    If people who can't be bothered to learn to drive properly and want a car that will effectively drive for them, they should be prepared to pay for their irresponsibility. The revenue generated from the tax would be used to fund driving schools which people could attend free of charge and learn how to drive cars properly.



    In addition, there should be tax band based on a vehicle's weight.

    4000lbs and over: $10,000
    3500-3999lbs: $8,000
    3000-3499lbs: $5,000
    2900-2999lbs: $2,500
    2200-2899lbs: -$2,500
    Under 2200lbs: -$5,000

    Thus, people who want to buy heavy cars will subsidize those who are willing to buy lightweight cars. Think how popular the Lotus Elise would be if everyone who bought one got a $5,000 tax rebate.

     
  21. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    By the way, you keep refusing to explain your description of the McLaren F1 as a "kit car". Either justify your description or retract it.
     
  22. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    To my knowledge the C5R uses the same frame and basics of the C5. It is stripped down being a race car, and basically having no interior. The engine is the same LS1 bored out to 427 ci.
     
  23. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    Grip shows how well the car is capable of handling... Think about it, if a car cant grip it cannot handle(accelerate) through a turn.

    Im getting sick of you calling the Corvette a "Detroit car" its made Bowling Green Kentucky, not all American cars are made in Detroit...
     
  24. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    Im so glad you have no say or power in the govornment, youd end up destroying the world with stupidity.
    Not everyone wants to buy a little compact car like the Elise, or other smaller european cars. Many people view them as "gay" and "feminye."
    And you also have consider some people need larger trucks to tow things, and why not get a 2-in-1 deal, buying an SUV to tow, being able to go off road, take the family places with out being crammed, and go on trips comfortably. You want to charge people for what they like or prefer? Like the Lotus Elise for example, will not suit everyones needs. The onoly way i would buy on is if i raced on a small track, or there were very many twisty roads around me, and i never stayed in the car for more than an hour. And not to mention the car has no A/C, so if you live in hot areas youd have to expect to loose alot of water weight from sweating every time you drive the damn car. Then think about insurance for the car, thats not going to be too cheap to insure a rare european sports car. As i hope you know most of Americas road are strait, and most people would rather have a car that rides good than have one that handles real good. European cars usually handle better because of the geography in Europe, the roads are narrow and twisty, so the car manufacturers make cars that adapt to the roads. Same here, roads are strait, people want good ride quality, and many want strait line perfomance, so the companies make them, its that simple.
    ABS isnt all about "panic stops", some times if you have to slow down quickly(more quickly than normal), becuase of say an animal in the road you might press the brake slowly down to the stoping point, if the tires start to lockup ABS kicks in and allow you to still manover around the object.
    Instead of inforcing idiotic rules that suit your tastes, why not have people take driving classes, and learn how to drive big and small cars, with and without ABS? Wouldnt that be safer?
     
  25. Re: The engine made it so expensive.

    ---
    To my knowledge the C5R uses the same frame and basics of the C5
    ---

    Not unless the C5 is made out of carbon fiber.
     

Share This Page