Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- If Chevrolet tried to recoup the cost of the Lotus R&D by adding it to the cost of the ZR-1, then that's the only accurate way of measuring whether the demand for the LT5 was strong enough to offset the cost. --- Actually, it isn't a good way to measure demand because the added price for the engine option doesn't accurately reflect the added cost of manufacturing. GM was just being greedy and lazy - something that isn't new when you're talking about their attitude toward the Corvette. --- These guys really thrash their cars, but they don't have enough money for alot of repairs. You see very few exotics in this type of competitition in the USA. The cars are mainly Japanese, German, and American. I haven't met anyone who blew an engine or anything like that. --- Then they're not really thrashing the cars that hard, are they? ;-> --- Apparently Mosler wanted this type of engine for the MT900, yet it's still very light and powerful. --- I'll bet you'll find that Mosler chose the engine because it was common, cheap and familiar. Plus, didn't a few of their employees come from GM? I'm not saying the LS6 was a bad choice for them, it was a perfectly logical one. I'm just saying that the car would be more impressive if the engine were more impressive. It wouldn't have been a big deal for them to design their own engine even using someone else's bits as a jumping-off point. Look at what Radical did with their Powertec V-8. http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/news_folder/v8stepsup/indexspec.php 400bhp from a 2.6 liter, 32-valve, quad-cam V-8 that weighs 203 lbs by itself or just over 300lbs with the gearbox as well. With the flat-plane crankshaft and a 10,000rpm redline, it must sound like the absolute business. Not bad for a shoestring budget. No reason why Mosler couldn't do something similar if they wanted to. The thing is, they probably want to concentrate on building the car and leave the engine to others. --- We're still not sure that any street engine is lighter AND more powerful, because none of us has determined whether or not TVR weighs their engines fully dressed. --- By "fully dressed", you mean the engine with all the things that would normally be attached to it (apart from the transmission) when installed in the car, right? I'll ask them at the TVR booth if I make it to the show this weekend. --- it's almost certainly taller and more thirsty. --- Why do you assume that?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Actually, it isn't a good way to measure demand because the added price for the engine option doesn't accurately reflect the added cost of manufacturing. GM was just being greedy and lazy - something that isn't new when you're talking about their attitude toward the Corvette." Applying the added cost of the manufacturing directly to the price of the car is the only way to learn if the demand is strong enough to offset the added cost. That's so obvious that it's silly to disagree. ___ "Then they're not really thrashing the cars that hard, are they?" They're trying to win. They're spinning out, crashing, hitting the rev limiter, etc., but they don't need much extra care unless they crash. ___ "I'll bet you'll find that Mosler chose the engine because it was common, cheap and familiar. Plus, didn't a few of their employees come from GM?" I'm sure that cost was a factor. It always is. I have no clue about their employees formerly working for GM, but it doesn't seem important. ___ "I'm not saying the LS6 was a bad choice for them" You said that it wasn't a "decent engine". That's what started this debate. The Ascari Ecosse uses a bigger, heavier engine that uses more fuel. Is that a "decent engine"? ___ "I'll ask them at the TVR booth if I make it to the show this weekend." Please let us know what they say. ___ "Why do you assume that?" I didn't assume. I said "almost". I said that because the LS6 has phenomenal fuel efficiency relative to its power, and because the TVR engine has a narrower V with DOHCs. Wouldn't you agree that it's highly likely that the LS6 uses less fuel and has a lower COG? ___ I'm still far from convinced that the AJP8 has the reliability, longevity, and low maintenance of the LS6.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Applying the added cost of the manufacturing directly to the price of the car is the only way to learn if the demand is strong enough to offset the added cost. That's so obvious that it's silly to disagree. --- I agree completely, but that isn't what they did. They also added in the money they paid an outside contractor (Lotus, I believe) to develoop the engine instead of charging it off as an R&D expense. That artificially increased the cost of the engine to consumers. The actual extra cost of building a DOHC engine is between $400 and $800 per unit depending on who you ask. Yet, the DOHC engine for the Corvette added much more than that to the price of the car. Now, do you think a DOHC option would be more popular if, for around $600 (we'll split the difference) you could get an engine that was more powerful, more efficient and revved higher than the pushrod V8? --- They're trying to win. They're spinning out, crashing, hitting the rev limiter, etc., but they don't need much extra care unless they crash. --- It sounds like, apart from the crashing part, they're just driving the cars hard. That's fine. Just about any car can be driven hard. Do you think exotics can't be? --- I have no clue about their employees formerly working for GM, but it doesn't seem important. --- Sure it is, you use what you're familiar with. --- You said that it wasn't a "decent engine". That's what started this debate. --- Just because it is an antique doesn't necessarily mean it is the wrong choice for everyone. Sometimes an antique can be the right choice. --- The Ascari Ecosse uses a bigger, heavier engine that uses more fuel. Is that a "decent engine"? --- Yes, the BMW engine from the M5 is larger and heavier it is also more refined and more reliable - perfectly consistent with BMW's application, which invoves fitting them to performance sedans. Size and weight are less important than NVH. BTW, why do you think it uses more fuel? The displacement is significantly smaller which generally means that less fuel is burned per cycle. --- I didn't assume. I said "almost". I said that because the LS6 has phenomenal fuel efficiency relative to its power, and because the TVR engine has a narrower V with DOHCs. Wouldn't you agree that it's highly likely that the LS6 uses less fuel and has a lower COG? --- I noticed the qualification and grant that you assumed a probability rather than a certainty but you still assumed. The narrower angle on the vee means the block itself is probably taller but the dry-sump allows the bottom of the engine to sit much lower in the car which not only reduces the CG of the engine but the entire car because not only can the engine sit lower but so can the entire drive-train. Also, I don't see how you can conclude that a 4.5 liter engine can use less fuel than a 5.7 liter engine. That's an entire economy-car engine-sized difference in displacement. Larger cylinders usually means more fuel is burned although a clever combustion chamber design can reduce the fuel consumed - like when Jaguar introduced the HE heads to their V-12 and dramatically improved mileage. Still, the only reason the Corvette gets decent mileage even part of the time is that the engine's torque curve allows for extremely tall gearing. In the real world, TVR drivers get mileage equivalent to the Corvette's EPA numbers which are pure fantasy as EPA numbers have always been.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Applying the added cost of the manufacturing directly to the price of the car is the only way to learn if the demand is strong enough to offset the added cost. That's so obvious that it's silly to disagree. --- I agree completely, but that isn't what they did. They also added in the money they paid an outside contractor (Lotus, I believe) to develoop the engine instead of charging it off as an R&D expense. That artificially increased the cost of the engine to consumers. The actual extra cost of building a DOHC engine is between $400 and $800 per unit depending on who you ask. Yet, the DOHC engine for the Corvette added much more than that to the price of the car. Now, do you think a DOHC option would be more popular if, for around $600 (we'll split the difference) you could get an engine that was more powerful, more efficient and revved higher than the pushrod V8? --- They're trying to win. They're spinning out, crashing, hitting the rev limiter, etc., but they don't need much extra care unless they crash. --- It sounds like, apart from the crashing part, they're just driving the cars hard. That's fine. Just about any car can be driven hard. Do you think exotics can't be? --- I have no clue about their employees formerly working for GM, but it doesn't seem important. --- Sure it is, you use what you're familiar with. --- You said that it wasn't a "decent engine". That's what started this debate. --- Just because it is an antique doesn't necessarily mean it is the wrong choice for everyone. Sometimes an antique can be the right choice. --- The Ascari Ecosse uses a bigger, heavier engine that uses more fuel. Is that a "decent engine"? --- Yes, the BMW engine from the M5 is larger and heavier it is also more refined and more reliable - perfectly consistent with BMW's application, which invoves fitting them to performance sedans. Size and weight are less important than NVH. BTW, why do you think it uses more fuel? The displacement is significantly smaller which generally means that less fuel is burned per cycle. --- I didn't assume. I said "almost". I said that because the LS6 has phenomenal fuel efficiency relative to its power, and because the TVR engine has a narrower V with DOHCs. Wouldn't you agree that it's highly likely that the LS6 uses less fuel and has a lower COG? --- I noticed the qualification and grant that you assumed a probability rather than a certainty but you still assumed. The narrower angle on the vee means the block itself is probably taller but the dry-sump allows the bottom of the engine to sit much lower in the car which not only reduces the CG of the engine but the entire car because not only can the engine sit lower but so can the entire drive-train. Also, I don't see how you can conclude that a 5.7 liter engine must use less fuel than a 4.5 liter engine. That's an entire economy-car engine-sized difference in displacement. Larger cylinders usually means more fuel is burned although a clever combustion chamber design can reduce the fuel consumed - like when Jaguar introduced the HE heads to their V-12 and dramatically improved mileage. Still, the only reason the Corvette gets decent mileage even part of the time is that the engine's torque curve allows for extremely tall gearing. In the real world, TVR drivers get mileage equivalent to the Corvette's EPA numbers which are pure fantasy as EPA numbers have always been.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "I'll bet you'll find that Mosler chose the engine because it was common, cheap and familiar. Plus, didn't a few of their employees come from GM?" Why the LS1/6 choice? Good power, light weight, great reliability, and the Intruder and Raptor had great success with the LT1 engines. The LS1/6 offered a potent reliable power package, that didn't need any additional performance mods to move the MT900 to 60mph in 3.5seconds or less. That was vital, because if the motor was modified, it would need complete EPA recertification, which is very costly. As far as I know, none of the employees at Mosler ever worked for GM, we did have one guy doing wiring for awhile that worked at a GM dealership though. Rod Trenne was part of the C5 design team, but was not a GM employee, he worked for an outsource company that GM used, and was an employee of Unigraphics when he was working with Mosler on the styling.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Why the LS1/6 choice? Good power, light weight, great reliability and the Intruder and Raptor had great success with the LT1 engines --- Just out of curiosity, what other engines were considered for the cars? Are you saying that the ubiqitous nature of the Chevy engine (and the attendant ease with which a customer could find expertise and parts to increase power after he buys the car) had nothing to do with the choice? --- if the motor was modified, it would need complete EPA recertification, which is very costly. --- Do you have any idea how much, even just roughly, this would be? Surely Mosler must have looked into the option and only discounted the option after getting a good idea of the cost involved. I'm curious what that cost is and what procedures are involved. If you did build your own engine (or use someone else's modified engine) is it as simple as turning a finished engine (or engines) over to the EPA with a big check while you await the results of the test? Or do they not only have to certify the engine itself but the process by which the engine is manufactured the way food and pharmaeutical products have to have their production processes certified.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Just out of curiosity, what other engines were considered for the cars?" That choice was made before I started with the company, All I know iw what I've been told regarding the LS1/6, and everyone really likes it. ---- "Are you saying that the ubiqitous nature of the Chevy engine (and the attendant ease with which a customer could find expertise and parts to increase power after he buys the car) had nothing to do with the choice?" No, it played a part in the choice too, especially in regards to the racecars. Endurance racing is all about reliability, and the less you have to "hop up" the motor, the less stressed it is. Also, for streetcars, using an engine that almost any mechanic can work on, makes repair alot easier, and warrenty costs lower. The customer doesn't have to find a mechanic familiar with that particular engine, or wait for parts to be shipped from a specific manufacturer. It may not seem as glamourous, but you could buy parts for your MT900's engine at Napa, or Discount Auto, which makes it alot easier to keep your car on the street. Then you have the aftermarket, which is HUGE for a small block chevy, making upgrading the engine for higher racing classes, or more street performance very easy. This I'm sure played a role in the decision too, but the baseline performance was a big key. Warren wanted to use a stock engine, in a light car, and get supercar performance, and standard car reliability. ------ "Do you have any idea how much, even just roughly, this would be? Surely Mosler must have looked into the option and only discounted the option after getting a good idea of the cost involved. I'm curious what that cost is and what procedures are involved. " I don't have exact numbers, but I would say a minimum of $2 million to fully EPA test an engine. Probably closer to $3million, by the time all the paperwork, and documention is done. ------ "If you did build your own engine (or use someone else's modified engine) is it as simple as turning a finished engine (or engines) over to the EPA with a big check while you await the results of the test? Or do they not only have to certify the engine itself but the process by which the engine is manufactured the way food and pharmaeutical products have to have their production processes certified." You have to turn a full car over to an independant testing lab, and they run all the required EPA tests. In our case, we turned over a complete car, and obtained GM's documentation via the FOIA. Then, we only have to document changes we made, ie exhaust is different, but we placed all the sensors the same as on the Corvette, etc. The lab verifies that, and moves on. If it was a unique engine, we'd be starting from a blank piece of paper, and everything would have to be documented, tested, and verified. FYI, a whole car is used, because the entire car has to meet EPA. Example, they put the car in a hot room, and measure any fumes that come from the car, such as adhesives from the construction, resins in the layups, etc. It's not just the engine, although the engine is the most technical of the tests. Production process would be a matter of the local EPA, just like the painting process. Local inspectors do the checks on manufacturing, be it an engine, or paint and body, due to the chemicals used.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- "Are you saying that the ubiqitous nature of the Chevy engine (and the attendant ease with which a customer could find expertise and parts to increase power after he buys the car) had nothing to do with the choice?" No, it played a part in the choice too, especially in regards to the racecars. Endurance racing is all about reliability, and the less you have to "hop up" the motor, the less stressed it is. Also, for streetcars, using an engine that almost any mechanic can work on, makes repair alot easier, and warrenty costs lower. The customer doesn't have to find a mechanic familiar with that particular engine, or wait for parts to be shipped from a specific manufacturer. It may not seem as glamourous, but you could buy parts for your MT900's engine at Napa, or Discount Auto, which makes it alot easier to keep your car on the street. Then you have the aftermarket, which is HUGE for a small block chevy, making upgrading the engine for higher racing classes, or more street performance very easy. This I'm sure played a role in the decision too, but the baseline performance was a big key. Warren wanted to use a stock engine, in a light car, and get supercar performance, and standard car reliability. --- This is what I was saying... that there is more to the appeal of the 5.7 liter Chevy V8 engine that it being the best from a purely technical standpoint. It is well loved and widely used for the same reason that PCs are. From a technical standpoint, PCs are absolute crap. Yet everyone (including me) uses them because they are well-known and parts/support is widely available. The funny thing is that there seems to be a big focus on affordability for a company who hand-crafts specialty cars that cost as much as a house. Let me ask you, do people willing to shell out that kind of bread for a car that is utterly impractical as a daily-driver (not that that's a bad thing) really care that they can take the thing to any GM service center to get it worked on? Is that honestly a selling point? Does a person willing and able to spend that kind of money on an automotive extravagance even set foot in Discount Auto? --- I don't have exact numbers, but I would say a minimum of $2 million to fully EPA test an engine. Probably closer to $3million, by the time all the paperwork, and documention is done. --- Sounds like cigarette-money for someone like Warren Mosler. ;->
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "The funny thing is that there seems to be a big focus on affordability for a company who hand-crafts specialty cars that cost as much as a house. Let me ask you, do people willing to shell out that kind of bread for a car that is utterly impractical as a daily-driver (not that that's a bad thing) really care that they can take the thing to any GM service center to get it worked on? Is that honestly a selling point? Does a person willing and able to spend that kind of money on an automotive extravagance even set foot in Discount Auto?" It's a BIG selling point in the racecar world. The MT900R is a very affordable car to buy, and run because of the way the car is built. Also, no one builds a dependable supercar, that you can get serviced locally, which will add appeal to the guy that owns a Viper, but would like something more exotic, but doesn't have a bottomless pocket book for the maintance that they require. It also makes for an affordable weekend track car, that he can maintain himself. --------------- "Sounds like cigarette-money for someone like Warren Mosler. ;->" Consider the company itself costs Warren about ~$3.5million a year, out of his pocket, to run. Now you want to more than double the expendatures, just to run a unique engine? because in addition to the EPA testing, you have to produce/modify these engines, and spare parts. For GM, thats not much money, but for a small company its BIG money. Panoz runs stock Ford engines for the same reason. Saleen...well, they put themselves in a big financial hole with the S7 too.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- The MT900R is a very affordable car to buy --- Relatively speaking... you might be right. But it still isn't cheap. Wouldn't it cost nearly 200 grand to put one on the road by the time you've paid for the car, tax, license, registration, etc... --- Also, no one builds a dependable supercar, that you can get serviced locally --- How about the Pagani Zonda? So you have to take it to a Mercedes dealer instead of a GM dealer - that isn't a big difference. Then there are the Audi-era Lamborghinis with their teutonic build-quality and reliability. The Germans have finally had the chance to tame the St. Agata bull and have done a remarkable job. Imagine driving something with Lamborghini excitement and exclusivity but Audi reliability. The V-10 in the new Gallargo isn't much more than Audi V8 with two extra cylinders added to the block. Though the V-12 is still the evolution of the original Bizzarrini F-1 design. --- It also makes for an affordable weekend track car, that he can maintain himself. --- I can see the appeal of the self-service angle - I suspect there are a fair few guys out there who have made big bucks in their chosen field and would buy a car like this with the idea that they'll do the work on it themselves. The idea that there is a rear-mounted Corvette engine powering the beast would appeal to this sort of customer. --- Consider the company itself costs Warren about ~$3.5million a year, out of his pocket, to run. Now you want to more than double the expendatures, just to run a unique engine? because in addition to the EPA testing, you have to produce/modify these engines, and spare parts. --- My point exactly - someone who has the wherewithal to spend that kind of money on what amounts to a "labor of love" is certainly in a position to consider building his own engine, at least as an option. You guys work around the LS6 every day and probably know as much as anyone about the engine's strengths and weaknesses. You're seriously telling me that not once has anyone at Mosler said "we could build a better engine than this, we could make it lighter, stronger, smaller, etc... Even just dry-sumping it would allow you to lower the CG of the car by lowering the position of the entire drive-train. It would also boost power (especially at higher revs) by eliminating oil-surge. Some subtle refinements to the valve-train would raise the red-line and increase both reliabillity and power. If you really wanted to go whole-hog, a four-valve head would improve emissions and increase power still more. Lighter, forged pistons/con-rods... The options are certainly there. Whether you want to tweak the existing Chevy engine or start with a clean sheet of paper and design something that combines everything you guys like about the LS6 and leave all the negative aspects behind. Like I said earlier, Radical Motorsports is doing some very impressive things with their V-8 project that uses some of the basic attributes and components of the Hayabusa engine and turns into into a fire-breathing V-8. All of that on a shoestring budget. Good on 'em, I say - and Noble and Marcos and TVR and the rest of them. But, as an American, I wish that there was someone in the states who had that same kind of attitude.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "The MT900R is a very affordable car to buy --- Relatively speaking... you might be right. But it still isn't cheap. Wouldn't it cost nearly 200 grand to put one on the road by the time you've paid for the car, tax, license, registration, etc..." MT900R is the race version, and they started at $159K in basic Grand American trim, now the price has gone up, because the racing classes it can race in have become more expensive, but for $200K or so, you have a pretty inexpensive, easy to maintain racecar. ------------- " Also, no one builds a dependable supercar, that you can get serviced locally --- "How about the Pagani Zonda? So you have to take it to a Mercedes dealer instead of a GM dealer - that isn't a big difference." What is the price on a new Zonda, vs. and MT900? Mercedes repair, vs. Chevrolet repair? Probably not much, but it's also an "impport" in the US, and Mosler Auto wanted a US supercar. --------- "My point exactly - someone who has the wherewithal to spend that kind of money on what amounts to a "labor of love" is certainly in a position to consider building his own engine, at least as an option." Its cost. I only touched on the cost to EPA certify a new engine. If you start from a blank sheet of paper, you have to factor in the design time, tooling, castings, machine time...you're talking millions of dollars more, plus maintaining spare parts and maintance items for the cars. Warren is a business man, and its just not financially worth it, to hire the staff, and spend the money to design his own engine. Plus, by using a Chevrolet engine, buyers know what they are getting, it has a known reputation. ----------- "Even just dry-sumping it would allow you to lower the CG of the car by lowering the position of the entire drive-train. It would also boost power (especially at higher revs) by eliminating oil-surge. Some subtle refinements to the valve-train would raise the red-line and increase both reliabillity and power. If you really wanted to go whole-hog, a four-valve head would improve emissions and increase power still more. Lighter, forged pistons/con-rods... The options are certainly there." Of course, and the race engines get all of that, depending on what the rule set for the series is. Total Engine Concepts (aka TEC) is another Mosler owned company, that builds all of the MT900R race engines, but they build using parts that already exist for the most part...why reinvent the wheel? Economically its just not feasable. Noble uses a tweaked Ford Duratec, TVR has their Speed 8 engine now, but its not US legal (and they have built alot more cars than Mosler, to build financial capital).
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- but for $200K or so, you have a pretty inexpensive, easy to maintain racecar. --- A bargain at twice the price. ;-> --- Mosler Auto wanted a US supercar --- One of the definitive attributes of a supercar is a high-tech engine. Look at the Italians, Germans and British... They want to bring a supercar to market, they put some serious hardware under the hood. Even Koenigsegg, who use a Ford engine, do some serious tweaking on it. All due respect to the MT900 but it isn't a supercar. Just having the performance isn't enough. It needs to have the presence and style. There is much to admire about the MT but the external styling is more than a bit awkward from certain angles. Mosler have painted themselves into a corner a little bit. They've released a product with supercar pricing but without the looks or engine worthy of a supercar. If the car sold for a third as much, it would probably get some serious attention. But putting a bog-standard Corvette engine in a custom body and then charging Lamborghini prices for it is a tough sell. --- Total Engine Concepts (aka TEC) is another Mosler owned company, that builds all of the MT900R race engines, but they build using parts that already exist for the most part...why reinvent the wheel? --- Ah, so a custom engine is available? Interesting. Do you have the specs for the racing engine handy? I searched on the net but couldn't come up with anyone but a description of it as a 5.5 liter (destroked?) engine with 2 valves/cylinder, a 7000rpm redline and 10.5:1 compression. Does it break 500bhp? I understand the appeal of using parts fabricated by others. Hey, as long as they work, right? Still, if you used your own parts, there'd be more profit in it. --- Noble uses a tweaked Ford Duratec --- Pretty seriously tweaked, I'd say. The latest ones are said to be good for 400bhp. I'm not a big fan of turbos but it is hard to argue with a car that beats a Lamborghini around a track for a fraction of the price. --- TVR has their Speed 8 engine now, but its not US legal (and they have built alot more cars than Mosler, to build financial capital). --- Actually, the AJP8 was their first in-house engine. The AJP6 is also a completely custom-built job and apart from problem they're having shaking the early reputation for fragility (maybe next time they'll built the critical components in-house) it is a brilliant engine. If you really want to get technical, they also did a V-12 based on the AJP6 (though it was never sold in quantity) so by some reckonings they've built three custom engines in-house. Yes, they build more cars than Mosler but they really don't build that many. In the early 90s it was a few hundred cars a year up to a peak of nearly 2000 by the end of the decade. They've scaled back production to under 1000 cars/year now. At one point when the Griffith and Chimera were at their peak of popularity, they outsold Porsche in the UK. To be fair, that was before the Boxter. Anyway, my point is that they built volume because of their low price. Mosler doesn't seem to be following that plan. They evidently want to stay a "boutique" manufacturer and build a handful of cars every year. That's fine but it will never be profitable. Now, if Mosler introduced an affordable car at a show which had a basic Corvette engine in it and all the light-weight/good handling with which Moslers are reputedly endowed... Think of a V8-powered Consulier with better styling. Thing of it is, Mosler could sell a car like this in the UK/Europe and make a fortune - well, a small one by Warren's standards. There is a large and devoted following for Detroit V8s over here. Lots of people would love to have Corvettes but hate their weight, handling, crappy plastic interiors and lack of RHD configuration (and, with all the various import hassles, they're bloody expensive). Plus, Mosler could take advantage of the relaxed regs for low-volume car manufacturers and not only get valuable production experience but make some money doing it. Think of it, Mosler gets a reputation for building ass-kicking low-volume production cars in the UK and Europe and then builds interest among potential American customers on the strength of some Noble/TVR thrashing in the British motor press...
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Supercar in your opinion or not...heck, even at the shop we don't use the term "supercar", we prefer to think of it as a racecar for the street. You mention TVR building 1000 cars per year...you realize Mosler hasn't built 1000 cars since the company was founded in 1985? Building cars in the UK is alot easier for a small company, that it is in the US, thats why TVR, Marcos, Ultima, etc., exist over there, but don't here. Thats also why Beckland is building Moslers in the UK, instead of Mosler shipping finished cars. "Anyway, my point is that they built volume because of their low price. Mosler doesn't seem to be following that plan. They evidently want to stay a "boutique" manufacturer and build a handful of cars every year. That's fine but it will never be profitable." You really need to read the Car and Driver article "Warren's World", I think it would give you alot better understanding of the company. I'll post it in a new thread. "Now, if Mosler introduced an affordable car at a show which had a basic Corvette engine in it and all the light-weight/good handling with which Moslers are reputedly endowed... Think of a V8-powered Consulier with better styling. " Isn't that what the MT900 is? aside from maybe your interpretation of what "affordable" is?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. Jon Gwynne You called this engine "ancient". Unless you think that 7 years is ancient, you've been debating about the wrong engine for a long time. When 2 engines have equal power, the one with higher displacement usually uses less fuel. The Ford GT40 not only beat the Ferraris at Le Mans in terms of speed, they also used less fuel. That was 7 liters vs 4 liters. The 4 liter V8 in the Ferrari 360 has terrible fuel efficiency, and it's only 30 pounds lighter than this car's engine. The 2 liter I4 in the Honda S2000 is only 70 pounds lighter and also uses more fuel, yet it only has 240 hp. You can find part of the explanation in my signature. High specific output requires a short stroke, but high fuel efficiency requires a long stroke. After many opportunities, you still haven't explained why this engine isn't "decent". It's smaller, lighter, less expensive, more powerful and more fuel efficient than an engine that you called decent. It's extremely reliable. It has great longevity. It requires little maintenance and it's inexpensive to maintain. It's also very easy to modify. I'm not sure what you mean by "refined". If it's something separate from all of these other qualities (which it must be), then I don't want it.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- You really need to read the Car and Driver article "Warren's World", I think it would give you alot better understanding of the company. --- Interesting article. I didn't know he lectured on Economics. Still, it doesn't change my impression of the company... He obviously runs the company as a hobby - I don't mean that as a put-down, just that he isn't building cars to make money, he does it because he enjoys it. I wish I could afford such a hobby and I hope it brings him much enjoyment. He's absolutely right about weight though. He sounds like Colin Chapman when he talks about how cars are too heavy. Has he driven a Lotus Elise or a TVR? --- "Now, if Mosler introduced an affordable car at a show which had a basic Corvette engine in it and all the light-weight/good handling with which Moslers are reputedly endowed... Think of a V8-powered Consulier with better styling. " Isn't that what the MT900 is? aside from maybe your interpretation of what "affordable" is? --- Sorry, but nearly 1/5th of a million dollars isn't anyone's definition of "affordable". I'm talking about a car that costs between $50k and $60k. That still isn't cheap but it isn't science-fiction money either like the current MT900. Also, the styling has a way to go. No offense to Mr. Trenne, but he's got a little to learn yet about making cars look good. He's about 80% of the way there. Getting the rest of the way isn't easy, but until he (or someone else) gets the car there, it won't be taken seriously no matter how it does on the track. I find it interesting when Mr. Mosler talks about how he doesn't understand the emphasis people put on styling. He said: "All the jokes, they come from people who seem to judge a car's usefulness by its styling alone. If that's a worthy measure, how do you explain the success of other unique-looking cars—a Porsche 911 or, say, a Lotus 7—that are essentially still in production today?" Like many people close to a project, he seems unable to distinguish between "unique-looking" and "ugly". The Lotus 7 has a purity of design and an elegance that transcends its eccentric look. Ditto for the 911. Though, Lotus has made some butt-ugly cars in its day though. Look at the Europa. Finally, in the 1970s, Colin Chapman grasped the importance of styling and hired Guigiaro's firm Ital Design to style the Esprit. The result was a car that, with minor modifications, lasted for amost 30 years. Look at cars like the Aston Martin DB7. A hundred years from now, people will look at it and say "My god, what a beautiful shape". Ian Callum worked magic with it. Peter Stevens did wonders with the McLaren F1. There are great Italian automotive artists like the aforementioned Guigiaro as well as Pininfarina or Bertone and also Germans like Albrecht Goertz. Now, name some great American stylists whose work has the same timeless quality. I can't think of a single one. Maybe it is an American thing. The new American-designed BMWs are horrendous looking and as for the Big Three, they haven't produced an interesting-looking car since the 1960s and all of those designs are thoroughly dated.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- When 2 engines have equal power, the one with higher displacement usually uses less fuel. The Ford GT40 not only beat the Ferraris at Le Mans in terms of speed, they also used less fuel. That was 7 liters vs 4 liters. The 4 liter V8 in the Ferrari 360 has terrible fuel efficiency, and it's only 30 pounds lighter than this car's engine. The 2 liter I4 in the Honda S2000 is only 70 pounds lighter and also uses more fuel, yet it only has 240 hp. You can find part of the explanation in my signature. High specific output requires a short stroke, but high fuel efficiency requires a long stroke. --- You're talking about two different things. Just because an engine is larger in displacement doesn't have anything to do with the bore/stroke. A long stroke may be better for fuel economy, it is definitely better for low-end torque which allows the same power to be delivered at lower revs which uses less fuel. BTW, how do you figure this relates to the LS6's fuel economy? After all, the LS6 is an "oversquare" engine - that is the bore (99mm) is larger than the stroke (92mm). By your argument it shouldn't be very fuel-efficient. Also, I'm not sure how you say the Corvette's engine uses less fuel than the Honda's. The EPA mileage rating are virtually identical (Honda does better in town and the Corvette does better on the highway) and yet the Honda is geared much lower than the Corvette which forces the engine to rev higher and burn more fuel. With the same gear ratios and rear end, the Corvette would seriously out-drink the Honda. Finally, where do you get your respective weight figures for the engines? --- After many opportunities, you still haven't explained why this engine isn't "decent". It's smaller, lighter, less expensive, more powerful and more fuel efficient than an engine that you called decent. It's extremely reliable. It has great longevity. It requires little maintenance and it's inexpensive to maintain. --- Pushrods simply aren't an efficient way to drive the valves on a performance-car engine. They're ok for trucks but the Corvette isn't a truck. For all the positive qualities you cite for this engine, of it was a DOHC design it would do better in every single category except for cost and the difference would be negligible. You keep talking about low maintanence but I don't know how you justify the claim. According to Edmunds.com, there are some hellishly expensive services due in year 4 and 5. Factored into the running costs of the car, we're talking an average of around $1,000/year in routine maintanence (plus whatever unforeseen visits to the shop come up) for your so-called "inexpensive" engine over the first five years. That isn't cheap. Then, go ahead and factor in real-world mileage in the teens and the extra insurance costs and you've got a car that is anything but cheap to run. Also, you keep talking about longevity but I have yet to see a Detroit engine that was capable of more than 125,000 miles and lots of them don't even make it to six figures before they need some major service. That isn't horrible but neither is it anything to crow about. --- It's also very easy to modify. --- OK, I'll give you that one. Small-block Chevy engines have been around since dirt was new so a lot of folks out there are providing third-party equipment and expertise when it comes time to boost the power. Of course it helps that Chevy didn't exactly knock themselves out to make the engine the best it could be to begin with, right? --- I'm not sure what you mean by "refined". --- I mean vibration and harshness. p.s. Why do you want a VW Toerag in your dream garage? p.p.s. If you're such a big fan of stone-age pushrods, why is your favorite engine a Honda OHC engine? And why that one? Why not Nissan's awesome I-6 from the Skyline?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "BTW, how do you figure this relates to the LS6's fuel economy? After all, the LS6 is an "oversquare" engine - that is the bore (99mm) is larger than the stroke (92mm). By your argument it shouldn't be very fuel-efficient. Also, I'm not sure how you say the Corvette's engine uses less fuel than the Honda's. The EPA mileage rating are virtually identical (Honda does better in town and the Corvette does better on the highway) and yet the Honda is geared much lower than the Corvette which forces the engine to rev higher and burn more fuel. With the same gear ratios and rear end, the Corvette would seriously out-drink the Honda." Higher displacement engines tend to have higher torque. When the engine has more torque, you can gear it higher and still deliver more torque to the wheels. The way the Z06 is geared, it gets slightly better mileage than the S2000, but easily out accelerates it, despite the extra weight. If they had equal weight and equal gearing, the Z06 would use more fuel, but the difference in acceleration would be so huge that it would be silly to compare fuel consumption. I suspect that the Mosler is geared lower than the Z06, so it probably uses more fuel, but the 1/4 mi time is in the low 11s. ___ "Finally, where do you get your respective weight figures for the engines?" I got them from these forums. Enough links and data were given to convince the Honda and Ferrari fans. ___ "Pushrods simply aren't an efficient way to drive the valves on a performance-car engine. They're ok for trucks but the Corvette isn't a truck. For all the positive qualities you cite for this engine, of it was a DOHC design it would do better in every single category except for cost and the difference would be negligible." IMHO, a pushrod engine can be a decent engine, or in this case, a fantastic engine. ___ "You keep talking about low maintanence but I don't know how you justify the claim. According to Edmunds.com, there are some hellishly expensive services due in year 4 and 5. Factored into the running costs of the car, we're talking an average of around $1,000/year in routine maintanence (plus whatever unforeseen visits to the shop come up) for your so-called "inexpensive" engine over the first five years. That isn't cheap. Then, go ahead and factor in real-world mileage in the teens and the extra insurance costs and you've got a car that is anything but cheap to run." You're referring to total maintenance costs, including things like tires and brakes. The tires on a Z06 aren't cheap. I was referring to the engine. All that I was trying to say was that it's not an exotic engine like a Ferrari. The work can be done inexpensively because it can be done at a Chevy dealer, and it doesn't need a tuneup or an oil change any more often than any other engine. ___ "Also, you keep talking about longevity but I have yet to see a Detroit engine that was capable of more than 125,000 miles and lots of them don't even make it to six figures before they need some major service. That isn't horrible but neither is it anything to crow about." I've never seen one that didn't make it to six figures, except for ones that were pushed FAR past redline. The newer ones have rev limiters and 200-300k is the norm. This is common knowledge in the USA. Everyone here has either owned an American V8 or knows someone who did. ___ "I mean vibration and harshness." Where did you hear that the LS6 has excessive vibration or harshness? ___ "p.s. Why do you want a VW Toerag in your dream garage?" It's my favorite SUV for a variety of reasons. Why do you ask? ___ "p.p.s. If you're such a big fan of stone-age pushrods, why is your favorite engine a Honda OHC engine? And why that one? Why not Nissan's awesome I-6 from the Skyline?" I call myself "mpg" for a reason. I like fuel efficient cars. I feel guilty about liking the Noble so much. The Elise would be my favorite road car if it was better looking. I would never buy a road car that used more fuel than the Noble, no matter how rich I was. I think that 160 hp is enough for any car, and that particular engine is the most fuel efficient engine that I know of, that makes around 160 hp. It just happens to be a DOHC engine, because that's the norm these days. I have no bias against DOHC engines. BTW, it's not a stone age pushrod. The block is only 7 years old, and the LS6 is only 3 years old. __________ P.S. I don't know when I'll be able to get back to this site. I'm going to be busy for a few days.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Sorry, but nearly 1/5th of a million dollars isn't anyone's definition of "affordable". I'm talking about a car that costs between $50k and $60k. That still isn't cheap but it isn't science-fiction money either like the current MT900." I'll have to disagree, we hear alot of comments on how affordable the car is, compared to what it is compared against, especially in regards to race cars. It's harder to compare street cars, since it hasn't actually gone on sale in the US yet, but from what I am told on orders, it will take awhile to fill them. ---------- "I find it interesting when Mr. Mosler talks about how he doesn't understand the emphasis people put on styling." "Like many people close to a project, he seems unable to distinguish between "unique-looking" and "ugly"." Warren likes performance, and performance is beauty. If it gets around the track faster, stops faster, gets to 60mph faster, then its a success. Form follows function. Now, knowing everyone involved in the project, I can't say everyone agrees with every styling aspect of the car, but I think it's come along way since the original silver prototype. I'm a bit biased, but I think the redesigned rear facia helps(my design), as does the wing. Sometimes I don't like the front radiator exit louvers (which are my design), but thats what was decided upon...sometimes I do, depends on my mood I guess. The thing is, when working on this car, you have to remember the performance is priority 1, and the intent of the car is to provide highend performance in an affordable package, to bring the racecar experience to the street. If thats not what you want, go buy a Lexus. If you want the baddest thing on the street, raw, brutal performance, buy a Mosler. This was Rod Trenne's first car from a blank computer screen. But, he has learned alot, and his more recent designs are much better, although you can still see the "Trenne" in them, as well as in the MT900. Smooth class A surfaces, and flowing reflections are very important to him. When you see the MT900 in person, with that understanding, you really appreciate it. The car is stunning in person, at least in my opinion, and I have never been told in person that the car is ugly. I'd have done a couple things differently, but thats me vs. Rod, and everyone has different taste. I absolutely LOVE the Elise, but I hear alot of people that think its ugly, and that it doesn't matter how fast, quick, and nimble it is, they would never own one. Oh well, their loss. Dunno if Warren has ever driven an Elise or TVR, but I know he is very familiar with them. DB7, and F1 are beautiful cars, one costs over a million dollars, and the other is too pretty to get down and nasty with. Neither is what the MT900 is meant to be though...bottom line is, Warren is going to build what he wants, and we'll continue to design cars that leave the others looking at our tail lights <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> On a side note, I think Jay Mays has done some pretty cool designs, but my absolute favorite American car designer is Chip Foose. Personal observation...you seem awful hard on the MT900...luck for us the press, and general public has been more favorable <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. A couple things to add: The Lotus 7 and Porsche 911 are ugly. I like the styling of this car more than my favorite car; the Noble M12 GTO 3R. I like the Noble more than this car, but not because of the styling. They both look good, but this one looks better. Audi needs to make a reliable Audi before they can make a reliable Lamborghini.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- Warren likes performance, and performance is beauty. If it gets around the track faster, stops faster, gets to 60mph faster, then its a success. Form follows function. --- Spoken like a true engineer. Warren may be an economist by education and profession but maybe "money engineer" would be another way of putting it. Well, if he's intent on building race cars this view may serve him well. But if he ever wants to make and sell road cars he'll have to change his tune if he wants to be successful at it. --- I'm a bit biased, but I think the redesigned rear facia helps(my design), as does the wing. --- Got any recent pictures you could upload. --- the intent of the car is to provide highend performance in an affordable package, to bring the racecar experience to the street. If thats not what you want, go buy a Lexus. If you want the baddest thing on the street, raw, brutal performance, buy a Mosler. --- Thing of it is that the MT isn't so much better than everything else availablle that you all can afford to adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude. There are other fish in your pond. How about the Ford GT if you want to talk about American cars? If you're going to talk about foreign cars there is everything from the Lamborghini Gallardo to the Koenigsegg with lots of things in between. Some of them are more expensive than the Mosler but they are also more suitable for use as road cars without giving up track performance. --- I absolutely LOVE the Elise, but I hear alot of people that think its ugly, and that it doesn't matter how fast, quick, and nimble it is, they would never own one. --- It is a bit fussy looking in certain areas. Still, the overall lines and proportions are excellent and I suspect most people's reticence in owning one (at least those who would consider a British two-seater roadster to begin with) object to more mundane problems like how hard the thing is to get in and out of and the fact that the cabin isn't a hospitable place for people over 6' or 190lbs. In addition, I think it will have limited appeal in the US (I assume you've been talking to Americans when you say people don't like it) because of its size. I never knew how really tiny they are until I saw one in person. Then, even after I'd seen it, the first time I drove it, it seems even smaller because of how the car looks from the driver's seat. On gigantic US roads alongside gigantic US pickup trucks and SUVs, the Elise driver is going to feel uncomfortably vulnerable and exposed. People will read about them eagerly and perhaps even flock to the showrooms but when they see them and particuarly after the test-drive, I think Lotus will see many people grow cool toward them. --- Personal observation...you seem awful hard on the MT900...lucky for us the press, and general public has been more favorable --- I'm not trying to tear it down just for the sake of doing it. I think to a certain extent, the press and public are blinded by the sheer novelty of what you are doing and blowing a little sunshine up your collective skirts - the way people praise a child's early attempts at a creative endeavour. Or, perhaps more appropriately, the way people praised "The Lord of the Rings" films. From so many standpoints they were really awful but people heaped praise on Peter Jackson anyway - at least partially, it seems, just for having the balls to take on a project that would have deterred more experienced and capable filmmakers. Some people look at the MT900 and say to themselves "I couldn't have done anything like that all by myself so it would be churlish to criticise it". I look at it and, with my experience and love of the car as an art form, I see what it could have been as well as what it actually is and see something that didn't reach its potential but could and should have. I hope you guys succeed, I really do. But I think it will take a more pragmatic approach to car building to do it. --- On a side note, I think Jay Mays has done some pretty cool designs, but my absolute favorite American car designer is Chip Foose. --- What has Jay Mays done that you like? Chip Foose is a hotrod designer, isn't he? At least that is what his web site seems to suggest. Interesting designs but obviously intepretations of style from a particular era. Have you ever seen a DB7 in person? Or a TVR Tuscan? Drop-dead gorgeous today and our great-great grandchildren will likely agree. These are timeless designs although, admittedly, the TVR is the far more aggressive of the two. Still, there are certain shapes, profiles and proportions that our eyes are collectively going to regard as pleasing and many of these are (or can easily be made) aerodynamic. Put another way, you don't have to choose between form and function or have one dictate the other. You can have both. When Mosler decide as a company that they WANT both. Things will get better for everyone.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- The way the Z06 is geared, it gets slightly better mileage than the S2000, but easily out accelerates it, despite the extra weight. If they had equal weight and equal gearing, the Z06 would use more fuel, but the difference in acceleration would be so huge that it would be silly to compare fuel consumption. --- Yes, but this is my point. The Honda's engine burns less fuel than the Corvette engine in the same conditions. --- IMHO, a pushrod engine can be a decent engine, or in this case, a fantastic engine. --- Can I assume that you'd praise a car that had drum brakes or used a hand-crank starter as well? --- All that I was trying to say was that it's not an exotic engine like a Ferrari. --- Ferrari dealership mechanics charge more for their work because they can. Not because they have to. That isn't a good comparison. --- "p.s. Why do you want a VW Toerag in your dream garage?" It's my favorite SUV for a variety of reasons. Why do you ask? --- What reasons? Why do you like SUVs at all? --- I feel guilty about liking the Noble so much. --- Why? It is an excellent car and in the real world its mileage will be at least equal to the Corvette. --- The Elise would be my favorite road car if it was better looking --- What don't you like about the looks? --- I think that 160 hp is enough for any car --- Hahahahahah! That's pretty funny considering every other car on your favorites list has well in excess of that. Personally, I don't think 160bhp is enough for ANY car, except maybe something as light as an Elise and even then it still isn't enough. --- BTW, it's not a stone age pushrod. The block is only 7 years old, and the LS6 is only 3 years old. --- Yes, but pushrods are antiquated technology, just like drum brakes, carbuerators and non-synchromesh transmissions. There is a reason why everyone outside of Detroit uses OHC engines and many of them have separate camshafts for intake and exhaust. The design is more efficient and more flexible than the pushrod-driven OHV engine. Still, Chevy things they can continue to make money by selling this antiquated design and as long as people keep buying Corvettes, I guess they won't have any reason to stop. You like fuel efficiency? What do you think of diesel engines? What about Vauchall's Eco-Speedster? It is esentially a VX-220 (which is, in turn, an Elise with different body panels and engine) with a 1.3 liter diesel engine and carbon-fiber body panels to save weight. Elise-level performance and over 100mpg. Not bad eh?
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. --- The Lotus 7 and Porsche 911 are ugly --- You may not like them but they aren't ugly. --- I like the styling of this car more than my favorite car; the Noble M12 GTO 3R. --- Really? Why? --- I like the Noble more than this car, but not because of the styling --- OK, I'll bite... Why do you like the Noble? Why is it your favorite? --- Audi needs to make a reliable Audi before they can make a reliable Lamborghini. --- Audi has been making reliable cars for quite a while now. Their early cars (i.e. 1970s and 1980s) had some issues but those are long sorted out.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Spoken like a true engineer." I take that as a compliment, thank you <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> ------------ "Well, if he's intent on building race cars this view may serve him well. But if he ever wants to make and sell road cars he'll have to change his tune if he wants to be successful at it." In your opinion I guess...but again, from what I'm told on the pre-production orders, selling them won't be an issue, building enough will be. --------------- "Thing of it is that the MT isn't so much better than everything else availablle that you all can afford to adopt a "take it or leave it" attitude. There are other fish in your pond. How about the Ford GT if you want to talk about American cars? If you're going to talk about foreign cars there is everything from the Lamborghini Gallardo to the Koenigsegg with lots of things in between. Some of them are more expensive than the Mosler but they are also more suitable for use as road cars without giving up track performance." All nice cars, and luckily we are fortunate enough to have a variety to choose from. Those that want the closest thing to a racecar experience on the street can get an MT900. None of the above cars offer that, they may be faster, or they might be more luxurious, but if you want bare bones performance, you have one choice...ok, two, you could get an Elise <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> --------------- "I think Lotus will see many people grow cool toward them." I hope so, then maybe I can pick one up cheap <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> -------------- "What has Jay Mays done that you like?" Most recently the Ford "49" concept. His work with Audi is nice too. ------------------- "Chip Foose is a hotrod designer, isn't he? At least that is what his web site seems to suggest. Interesting designs but obviously intepretations of style from a particular era." Yep, his canvas is generally the street rod, but his new thunderbird is pretty slick too. Beyond the fact he chooses the street rod canvas though, the way he reworks the forms, and integrates engineering into styling is beauty in my eyes. His art school training, and natural artistic eye, gives him a HUGE advantage over the other street rod builders. --------------------- "Have you ever seen a DB7 in person? Or a TVR Tuscan? Drop-dead gorgeous today and our great-great grandchildren will likely agree. These are timeless designs although, admittedly, the TVR is the far more aggressive of the two." Yes, I've seen both the DB7 and Tuscan upclose and personal. I really like the DB7, but the Tuscan didn't really do much for me. Thats the only TVR I've seen in the flesh, but none that I've seen in pictures have made much of an impression on me either. --------------------- "Still, there are certain shapes, profiles and proportions that our eyes are collectively going to regard as pleasing and many of these are (or can easily be made) aerodynamic. Put another way, you don't have to choose between form and function or have one dictate the other. You can have both." Of course, and I'll agree to a point. Proportions play a big role, and in my opinion the MT900 greenhouse is to narrow, but at the same time it offers a great advantage in getting clean air to the wing. could the same affect have been done another way? Probably, but at what cost? hours of CFD, which is expensive...or go on what Mosler already knows will work? If we had a Mclaren or Ferrari budget, we run alot of CFD and scale windtunnel tests, but when your a niche manufacturer with a small budget, you do what you know works. --------------- "When Mosler decide as a company that they WANT both. Things will get better for everyone." I collaborating with Rod Trenne, I think that choice to mesh form with function was made, but obviously function is the priority. Luckily, the complaint line is small <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> ------------- rear facia. New: http://www.moslerauto.com/images/mt900/photo/burg/photo_008.jpg Old: http://www.moslerauto.com/images/mt900/photo/burg/photo_011.jpg
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "Yes, but this is my point. The Honda's engine burns less fuel than the Corvette engine in the same conditions." Noone's disputing the fact that a DOHC engine can use slightly less fuel if you compare it to a pushrod engine that has 69% more power and approximately 150% more torque. ___ "Can I assume that you'd praise a car that had drum brakes or used a hand-crank starter as well?" I could praise a car with drum brakes if the brakes had fantastic performance. ___ "Ferrari dealership mechanics charge more for their work because they can. Not because they have to. That isn't a good comparison." As Gunman said, maintenance costs ARE a consideration of Mosler buyers. ___ "Why do you like SUVs at all?" I would never use an SUV as a daily driver, but I would use it offroad, in EXTREME weather, and for towing the Cheetah. ___ "Why? It is an excellent car and in the real world its mileage will be at least equal to the Corvette." It's possible that it could use less fuel than the Z06, but I doubt it. Z06 owners claim to get more than 30 mpg on long trips. It doesn't matter because you don't see the Z06 in my sig anyway. I guess that I shouldn't feel too guilty liking the Noble, because I could have a more fuel efficient engine installed. A normally aspirated I4 would also reduce the weight and improve the weight distribution. The reason that I feel guilty about liking it is the price. ___ "What don't you like about the looks?" I like what I like. ___ "Hahahahahah! That's pretty funny considering every other car on your favorites list has well in excess of that." I should've said that it's enough for any "road car". The Cheetah is a racecar, the Touareg is an SUV, I already explained the Noble, the MR2 has less than 160 hp, and 160 hp is enough for a car like a 3 series. I chose the 325Xi because it uses less fuel than the 330Xi. What's so funny? Were you trying to be rude? ___ "Personally, I don't think 160bhp is enough for ANY car, except maybe something as light as an Elise and even then it still isn't enough." I'm very concerned about pollution and the situation in the Middle East. ___ "Yes, but pushrods are antiquated technology" Nothing succeeds like success. ___ "You like fuel efficiency? What do you think of diesel engines? What about Vauchall's Eco-Speedster? It is esentially a VX-220 (which is, in turn, an Elise with different body panels and engine) with a 1.3 liter diesel engine and carbon-fiber body panels to save weight. Elise-level performance and over 100mpg. Not bad eh?" That sounds fantastic. I wish that it was available in the USA.
Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars. "You may not like them but they aren't ugly." It's a matter of opinion. ___ I like the styling of this car more than my favorite car; the Noble M12 GTO 3R. --- "Really? Why?" I like what I like. ___ "OK, I'll bite... Why do you like the Noble? Why is it your favorite?" I like the Noble because of its combination of handling, styling, fuel efficiency, and price. ___ "Audi has been making reliable cars for quite a while now. Their early cars (i.e. 1970s and 1980s) had some issues but those are long sorted out." I mentioned Consumer Reports in a previous post. They're generally considered to be unbiased because they don't accept advertising. According to their data, Audis have terrible reliability. They're not even close to average by American standards. Japanese cars sell very well in the USA because American buyers put a very high priority on reliability. German and Swedish cars are the only European cars that sell in significant numbers in the USA.