ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

Discussion in '1995 Lister Storm GT1' started by CHEVYRULES, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    yup i sense it too<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. There must be a mistake.

    Wait wait wait wait wait. 600 horsepower and the damn car goes 170 mph??? I thought the production Storm was bad, but Jesus!<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. 1st storm bigger than the second?

    This car seems to have more power than the new storm..I sense a brotherly rivalry.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from DinanM3Coupe</i>
    <b>there are old storms and new storms?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    well, they are 4 years apart.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    this car looks alot better 2
     
  6. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    Well,
    This car was made to be in GT1(GTP) Lemans spec. In 1999(or 2000) the car was de-tuned to FIA GT2 spec. <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    The Storm came about in 1993 as The Lister Storm capable of 190mph, it had 4 seats. This is the current Storm racing car.
    To homologate it for GT1 rules the Storm GTL came about. It had only 2 seats, more torque and was capable of 200mph. <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Racepics</i>
    <b>Well,
    This car was made to be in GT1(GTP) Lemans spec. In 1999(or 2000) the car was de-tuned to FIA GT2 spec. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    That explains all.
     
  9. Re: 1st storm bigger than the second?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Bigblockbrawler426Hemistage8</i>
    <b>so that is a pity.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    a pity? a front engined car is a rarity in car racing these days and to actually see one out there is good even if it has been de-tuned
     
  10. Re: The Street Version was SO much better....

    Ever heard of gear ratio's??<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. Re: The Street Version was SO much better....

    The street version is more beaultiful but the race version is surely the best for races...due to the gear ratios and aerodynamic design<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Re: The Street Version was SO much better....

    if the street version is better then the race version why don't they jst race that
     
  13. The Street Version was SO much better....

    Street Version = 202 mph

    Race Version = 170 mph


    ....WTF is wrong with them??? They make thier race car slower then their street car!!!
     
  14. 600 bhp, 1270kg and 274kph. Wath more is ther to say
     
  15. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    gearing.

    and looks are a matter of opinion.
    i reckon it looks cool, nice for a manufacturer to try a different design.

    i thought the GT1 was black and white with a six-speed, entered into the BGTC... could be a different year i suppose.
     
  16. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    I saw the max speed at 208MPh for the 1993 GT version.This seems too high , but 170.3mph must be very under rated.
     
  17. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    Its the Gearing, its geared for fast acceleration (Short), it could be Geared to go alot faster.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    agreed
    i'm not impressed
     
  19. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Bigblockbrawler426Hemistage8</i>
    <b>too slow for a such car!!!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Hello??? its a race car?? the gears can be changed to suit the track, so Top Speed is Gear Ratio dependant.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    this is a heavy car but 170 does seem quite low, everyone seems to agree that this car wpuld have to be geared low for it to have such a low top speed
     
  21. #21 Live4Speed, Feb 18, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    These stats are wrong. Check www.listerstorm.com. The real GT1 has 660bhp at 6700rpm, 555Lb/ft at 6000rpm, weighs 100Kg and has a 6 speed sequential box.
     
  22. #22 Live4Speed, Feb 18, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: The Street Version was SO much better....

    Supercars.net has got all these stats wrong for this car. Check www.listerstorm.com and check out the car. It has 660Bhp, 555Lb/ft, weighs 100Kg and has a 6 speed box.
     
  23. Re: The Street Version was SO much better....

    Just to correct the weight it's 1000Kg not 100.
     
  24. Re: ugly and bad preformance, dosnt get worse

    Have any of you people thought about downforce making the cars top speed 170mph?? The porcshe GT-1 has a top speed of 190 mph!
     

Share This Page