Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

Discussion in '2005 Mosler MT900 S' started by SSwannabe, Dec 17, 2002.

  1. #126 Jon Gwynne, Jun 2, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    "Spoken like a true engineer."

    I take that as a compliment, thank you
    ---

    It was meant as a compliment. I think like an engineer myself. Still, there are times when that can be a liability.

    ---
    but again, from what I'm told on the pre-production orders, selling them won't be an issue, building enough will be.
    ---

    So, does that mean that Mosler Automotive will soon be turning a profit?


    ---
    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
    ---

    I don't understand, if the Mosler isn't as fast or good to drive, what does it offer? What does offering a "racecar experience" mean? And why wouldn't someone consider the Ford GT to be a car that is faster, more powerful, more luxurious and possessing a more technologically-advanced engine for less money. Not to mention the GT's racing heritage through its predecessor the GT40. The Moser has some racing pedigree of its own, I grant you, but how many times have Mosler beat Ferrari at Le Mans?


    ---
    I hope [the Lotus Elise gets a cool reaction from US buyers], then maybe I can pick one up cheap
    ---

    You'll have to wait and see what happens on the used market. You may well find some bargains if lots f people buy them on impulse and then grow weary of them after a short time as owners and lots of them appear at once. Thing of it is that the traditionally strong resale prices of Toyotas and Honda S2000s may put an artificial floor on used Elise prices.


    ---
    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.
    ---

    But it seems you favor the retro American-car look if you like the artists and cars you mentioned. That's fine. My dad has a thing for cars from the 1930s-1950s and has owned many classics. If he wins the lottery, I expect to see him tooling around in Duesenberg.

    Still, that is a particular look and even the modern cars which adopt that sort of styling (e.g. PT Cruiser, Prowler, Mini, Beetle, etc.) are offered up as "retro" - meaning they are nods to the past. I'm talking about timeless styling; a design that won't look aged after a few years. That requires certain lines and proportions which these cars lack.

    Look at cars like the Lamborghini Miura, the E-type or original XJ6 Jaguars, the original Lotus Elan, Delorean DMC-12, McLaren F1 etc... They could practically pass for new cars today.


    ---
    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.
    ---

    What didn't you like about the Tuscan?

    Also, have you seen pictures of the Cerbera? With your love of hot-rods, I'd have thought its "chopped" look would appeal to you.


    ---
    Proportions play a big role, and in my opinion the MT900 greenhouse is to narrow
    ---

    I agree with you there. It throws the whole rest of the car off. Particularly the front quarter view like the one you see at the top of this page.

    Anyway, I hope Mosler makes enough money off this one that they can afford a clean-sheet design on a Mark-II. Maybe some of these issues can be addressed.



    ---
    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
    ---

    I agree, the new version looks much better - even without the color change. Is that wing mandatory? Is the car reasonably stable without it like the McLaren or does it have to be fitted with a spoiler to make it safe to drive?
     
  2. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    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.
    ---

    Actually, weren't you the person who said that the LS6 is more fuel efficient that the Mitsubishi Evo and/or Honda S2000 engines?


    ---
    I could praise a car with drum brakes if the brakes had fantastic performance.
    ---

    And if they had just mediocre performance? A paltry 400bhp from a 5.7 liter engine is thoroughly mediocre.


    ---
    As Gunman said, maintenance costs ARE a consideration of Mosler buyers.
    ---

    And as I said, I think that someone willing to spend nearly $200,000 (or more) on a 4th or 5th car isn't going to be as worried about service costs as some people here seem to think.


    ---
    I would never use an SUV as a daily driver, but I would use it offroad, in EXTREME weather
    ---

    Then you'd hate most modern SUVs. They're so compromised for road use and mainstream comsumer appeal they've all but lost their offroading ability.



    ---
    It's possible that it [Noble] could use less fuel than the Z06, but I doubt it. Z06 owners claim to get more than 30 mpg on long trips
    ---

    The only reason the Corvette does well on long trips is its interstellar gearing that allows the car to cruise the freeways at not much more than idle. The minute you actually start driving it, the mileage goes back into the teens.



    ---
    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.
    ---

    Assuming you could fit a even a decent I-4 in the car, performance would plummet. Remember, the V-6 is one of the most compact engine configurations and in mid-engine cars like the Noble longitudinal engine size is a BIG issue. Unless you wanted to pop a 1.8 liter engine in the Noble's engine bay, you might have trouble.

    Mileage isn't bad in the car as it is. I think it would return something in the low-mid 20s during normal daily driving. Remember, the big enemy of fuel economy is weight and the automatic transmission. The Noble has neither.


    ---
    The reason that I feel guilty about liking it is the price.
    ---

    Why on earth? You're getting a hand-built car for around £50k. Less if you want to go shopping on the used market. There are a LOT of performance cars out there that cost lots more.


    ---
    I should've said that it's enough (160bhp) for any "road car"... 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?
    ---

    I guess "enough" is a relative term. I find BMW 3-series cars to range from dangerously underpowered (four-cylinder cars) to disappointingly underpowered (I-6 cars). I've never driven an M3, but I suspect one of the I-6 versions would begin to creep into the range of "adequate".

    To answer your other question, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just laughing because your statement seemed to contradictory to what you had said elsewhere. I was laughing with you, not at you.



    ---
    "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.
    ---

    That's fine but just because a car is powerful doesn't mean it has to be polluting. The Honda S2000 qualifies for Ultra Low Emissions or something in California. The TVR Speed Six engine passes EU4 regs which are more strict with emissions limits than anything in SUV-infested North America.

    I read about a test done a while back that claimed the exhaust from a properly-tuned modern car was, in Los Angeles, cleaner than the surrounding air.

    BTW, if you want to do your part to stop sending money to the Middle East, buy a diesel-powered car and run 100% eco-diesel in it.


    ---
    I said: "Yes, but pushrods are antiquated technology"

    You replied: Nothing succeeds like success.
    ---

    There's a difference between actually succeeding and people buying something because there isn't an option. People buy pushrod Corvettes because that's all that Chevy offers them. There was a brief flirtation with a DOHC engine but Chevy weren't serious about making it a mainstream option. The funny thing is that GM makes lots of great DOHC engines. They just keep selling the small-block V8 because they paid their R&D bills off a long time ago and they mean to keep milking the design as long as they can. It is simple, narrow-minded greed.


    ---
    That sounds fantastic. I wish that it was available in the USA.
    ---

    Well, let GM know you'd be interested in buying one if they offered it. Remember, Vauxhall is a GM company as is Opel (who sell the VX-220 in Europe). The fact is that if a diesel-powered VX-220 ever does make it to production, it won't have carbon-fiber body panels because they would be too expensive to manufacture, but simple fiberglass wouldn't add too much weight and freeway mileage could probably stay in three figures or at least in the 90s.

    Would you pay $30k for a two seater with a diesel engine if you could get 90mpg or better on the freeway?

     
  3. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "I agree, the new version looks much better - even without the color change. Is that wing mandatory? Is the car reasonably stable without it like the McLaren or does it have to be fitted with a spoiler to make it safe to drive?"

    It's safe without, and not a standard piece. Most of us at the shop prefer the look, without it the rear deck seems vast and empty. The drivers like the added rear downforce for cornering too.
    --------
    "I don't understand, if the Mosler isn't as fast or good to drive, what does it offer? What does offering a "racecar experience" mean? "

    Who says it isn't as fast, or as good to drive? it is a bit more "raw", due to the lack of plushness in the interior, but thats all part of keeping like a racecar. 0-60 in 3.5secs, a top speed in the 180mph range(per Autocar), 74mph slalom (per Motor Trend)...how much faster do you want? and it is hella fun to drive (personal experience). Martin Short really likes his MT900R, and he's driven a TVR or two on the track <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>

     
  4. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "Actually, weren't you the person who said that the LS6 is more fuel efficient that the Mitsubishi Evo and/or Honda S2000 engines?"

    I said that the Z06's engine uses less fuel than the S2000's engine. Ofcourse that's partially due to the cars that they're installed in, but there's also a huge differences in acceleration. If you put the S2000 engine in the Z06, the fuel consumption would probably be about the same, but the acceleration would be much worse.
    ___

    "And if they had just mediocre performance? A paltry 400bhp from a 5.7 liter engine is thoroughly mediocre."

    Specific output isn't part of performance, unless you live in a country that taxes displacement. We've been through this already.
    ___

    "Then you'd hate most modern SUVs. They're so compromised for road use and mainstream comsumer appeal they've all but lost their offroading ability."

    We agree there.
    ___

    "The only reason the Corvette does well on long trips is its interstellar gearing that allows the car to cruise the freeways at not much more than idle. The minute you actually start driving it, the mileage goes back into the teens."

    What kind of mileage does the Noble get in city driving?
    ___

    "Assuming you could fit a even a decent I-4 in the car, performance would plummet. Remember, the V-6 is one of the most compact engine configurations and in mid-engine cars like the Noble longitudinal engine size is a BIG issue. Unless you wanted to pop a 1.8 liter engine in the Noble's engine bay, you might have trouble."

    It's not hard to mount an I4 transversely in a midengine car. The V6 is already mounted transversely.
    ___

    "Mileage isn't bad in the car as it is. I think it would return something in the low-mid 20s during normal daily driving. Remember, the big enemy of fuel economy is weight and the automatic transmission. The Noble has neither."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Exige use alot more fuel than the Z06?
    ___

    I believe that technology should be used to increase fuel efficiency while maintaining current power, rather than increasing power while maintaining current fuel efficiency. That's why I don't want more than 160 hp in a sportscar.

    Why did you bring up SUVs, LA (impossible to believe), and North America? They don't belong in this conversation. If I used the tiniest bit of inductive logic, I'd have to say that your bias is obvious. Honestly, it's been obvious since you first said that this car didn't have a decent engine. Every criticism that you made about this engine has been refuted by facts. It's painful for some people to accept that a great car can be made in the USA.
     
  5. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    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.
    ---

    I'm aware of the reputation for objectivity but that doesn't necessarily mean they're infallible. Do you have any information you want to post about what they have to say about Audis? I tried to get access to it myself but they only give that information to subscribers.

    Meanwhile, in Europe, Audi's reputation for build-quality and reliability is right up there with other German carmakers like Porsche or BMW and has been for many years.

    Maybe CR still hasn't forgiven Audi for the 5000S. The SAI problems with that car were down to the driver anyway.


    ---
    German and Swedish cars are the only European cars that sell in significant numbers in the USA.
    ---

    Yeah, most other European manufacturers don't want to go through the certification hassles to sell in North America. Fiat, Alfa, Renault, Puegeot. Still others like Skoda, Seat and others are owned by companies like Volkswagen that aready send other, similar models to the US.

    This is a shame since that means Americans miss out on some interesting cars. The Puegeot 206CC would probably sell well in the US. Ditto for the Fiat Barchetta. I can just imagine all the Rush fans lining up to buy a red one.

    Also, since Volvo is a division of Ford, Saab is the only Swedish company still selling cars in the US. How are their sales doing, by the way? Last I heard, they still had a loyal cult following but mainstream success was eluding them.
     
  6. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    Who says it isn't as fast, or as good to drive? it is a bit more "raw", due to the lack of plushness in the interior, but thats all part of keeping like a racecar. 0-60 in 3.5secs, a top speed in the 180mph range(per Autocar), 74mph slalom (per Motor Trend)...how much faster do you want? and it is hella fun to drive (personal experience).
    ---

    I'm not saying it is a bad car (especially since I haven't driven one). I'm just saying that if Mosler is like the rest of the small-volume carbuilders in the world, the car won't have the same polish (nor would anyone expect it to) as those from a company that can spend more engineering the door mechanism than the little guys spend developing the entire vehicle.

    So, compared to something like the Ford GT which has equivalent performance, it will seem rough and compromised. And yet the Ford is significantly cheaper and has more power and a more technologically advanced engine. Even a company like Noble, who is generally considered to be at or near the top of the build-quality game among small-volume companies, has some issues to resolve in terms of driving position, entering/exiting the car, pedal position, etc...

    This is why cars like Noble, TVR, Marcos, etc... are much cheaper than the competition and that's how they sell cars.

    I'm sure the MT900 is a blast to drive, but the real question is how it would fare as a "daily driver".

    So you've driven a Mosler (you have a GREAT job!) Have you driven a Ford GT or a Lamborghini Murcielago?


    ---
    Martin Short really likes his MT900R, and he's driven a TVR or two on the track
    ---

    I assume you're talking about Martin Short the Libyan and not Martin Short the Canadian... ;->

    Does Mr. Short drive the car on the road or just at the track?
     
  7. #132 Jon Gwynne, Jun 3, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    I said that the Z06's engine uses less fuel than the S2000's engine
    ---

    Which isn't really true no matter how you spin it. The best you could say is that at constant freeway speeds, the Corvette gets slightly better mileage than the Honda.

    But this doesn't mean the Corvette's engine uses less fuel under indentical loads because the loads aren't the same.


    ---
    Ofcourse that's partially due to the cars that they're installed in
    ---

    Partially? Don't you mean entirely? Put the two engines on a test bench and in any given rev range, the Honda engine will use less fuel than the Chevy engine. This is because is has smaller cylinders and half as many of them. It also has a more efficient valvetrain.


    ---
    If you put the S2000 engine in the Z06, the fuel consumption would probably be about the same, but the acceleration would be much worse.
    ---

    Actually, you'd find that the mileage would be much better but, I agree with you about the acceleration.



    ---
    Specific output isn't part of performance
    ---

    Sure it is. If I put gigantic drum brakes on a car that only performed as well as normal-sized discs, would you say they performance was the same?

    If I beat Andre Agassi in tennis because Andre only walked around the court while I ran, would you say I was the better tennis player?



    ---
    What kind of mileage does the Noble get in city driving?
    ---

    http://www.pistonheads.com/members/showCar.asp?carId=3470 - "getting around 23mpg despite using it's performance to the full"


    Now, tell me that if you were to drive a Corvette with a heavy foot that you'd get 23mpg. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Obviously that isn't really a fair comparison because the Noble is the entire cast of "Friends" lighter than than Corvette, but you did ask. ;->



    ---
    It's not hard to mount an I4 transversely in a midengine car. The V6 is already mounted transversely.
    ---

    It isn't hard IF THERE IS ROOM. Remember, the car is designed for a V-6. Why would you want to put a longer engine in it? Also, engine transplants are very tricky things. Ask anyone who's tried it.


    ---
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Exige use alot more fuel than the Z06?
    ---

    I don't know anyone who actually owns one but I would be very surprised to learn that is the case. Mileage for the Exige is reported as 23 city, 42 cruising and 32 combined. Remember, those are British figures and are generally closer to real world than the EPA estimates.

    I had custody of an S2 Elise for a week and put almost 400 miles on it. Despite my tendency to cane the thing mercilessly, it still got mileage well into the 30s. I'd expect the new Exige to manage at east high 20s and possibly low 30s with similar treatment.


    ---
    Why did you bring up SUVs, LA (impossible to believe), and North America? They don't belong in this conversation.
    ---

    We were talking about fuel economy, emissions and such. SUVs are horrible cars from fuel-consumption/pollution standpoint. They'd never pass even basic emission tests if they didn't get special exemptions for being SUVs. The fuel efficiency is appalling due to the weight and fact that most of them are equipped with automatic transmissions.

    We were also talking about how you seem to think that engine designers have to choose between power and emissions. They don't. Modern engines are proof of that.


    As far as that test I mentioned, you'd have to ask P.J. O'Rourke for specifics. He mentioned it in his book "Age and Guile..." in the chapter "Die Ecoweenies" but neglected to give details.

    I quote: "According to DOT studies, 10% of the cars on the road are responsible for half of all auto effluvia. The technology exists for instant tailpipe checks. The polluters could be made to pay. The money could be used to buy clunkers off the road... The cars we were driving [Rolls Royce Silver Spirit III, Dodge Viper, Ferrari 512TR, Chevy Suburban, Jaguar XJ12, Mercedes S600, Ford F150 Lightning], though they consume large arounts of gasoline, don't produce much pollution... In recent testing in London and California, it was determined that the exhaust of a Saab 9000 was actually cleaner than the air it took in."

    And to be fair, PJ obviously didn't know about the exemptions for trucks and SUVs when he wrote the penultimate sentence. And those DOT studies he mentions were done before the lamentable SUV fad so the number will be different today.


    ---
    Every criticism that you made about this engine has been refuted by facts.
    ---

    Name one.


    ---
    It's painful for some people to accept that a great car can be made in the USA.
    ---

    I'm sure you're right, but I'm not one of those people. I have NEVER said that the Big Three are incapable of making a great car. In fact I have said the opposite on many occasions. My point is that they could make great cars but choose not to. The Ford GT has the makings of a great performance car. It is extremely innovative and is stuffed to the gunwales with high technology.

    Saturns are excellent cars. They show what GM is capable of doing when they set out to achieve excellence. Too bad the experiment didn't catch on...

    The idea that the Corvette is a "great car", on the other hand, is laughable.
     
  8. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "So you've driven a Mosler (you have a GREAT job!) Have you driven a Ford GT or a Lamborghini Murcielago?"

    Haven't had that opportunity yet. Actually, I haven't even seen a new GT yet, but it shouldn't be long considering how close Palm Beach is.
    -------

    "I'm sure the MT900 is a blast to drive, but the real question is how it would fare as a "daily driver"."

    I drove it 5 days in a row, probably 240 miles or so (40 mile stints), and aside from it having a bit of an alilgnment issue (which was taken care of quickly), I had no complaints. Is it a daily driver for everyone? no. It's definatly a bit brash for most.
    -------
    I assume you're talking about Martin Short the Libyan and not Martin Short the Canadian... ;->

    Does Mr. Short drive the car on the road or just at the track?"

    The Libyan, of course <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> He has his MT900R which is a track only car, and currently the yellow MT900S "Photon" which is a streetcar. The Photon is just in Europe to give the Euro press a chance to drive it, Beckland a chance to look over a complete car, and a chance to show the European public the car. Martin's been driving it quite a bit as I understand.

     
  9. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    Regarding fuel consumption:
    I was merely saying that if two engines have EQUAL power, the one with higher displacement will usually use less fuel, especially if there's a large difference in the displacement. The engine in the Z06 is moving a heavier car than the S2000, yet it still uses less fuel. Ofcourse it's geared higher, but you can't do that with a low torque engine such as in the S2000. If you compare the fuel consumption of many cars, the trend is obvious. Higher displacement engines usually use less fuel when compared with engines of equal power. The engines in the S2000 and the 360 demonstrate what happens when specific output is too high.
    ___

    "If I put gigantic drum brakes on a car that only performed as well as normal-sized discs, would you say they performance was the same?"

    If they stopped the car as well as the discs, and if the unsprung weight didn't change, then yes. This is getting very redundant.
    ___

    "Now, tell me that if you were to drive a Corvette with a heavy foot that you'd get 23mpg. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Obviously that isn't really a fair comparison because the Noble is the entire cast of "Friends" lighter than than Corvette, but you did ask."

    Is that miles/Imperial gallon, or US gallon? I'm sure that the Z06 would fall to the teens in those circumstances, but as I said, Z06 owners claim to get over 30 on the highway. If you average the two out, the Z06 might use less fuel. You're right though, it's not really a good comparison, because the Noble is quicker and the Z06 is heavier.
    ___

    "I don't know anyone who actually owns one but I would be very surprised to learn that is the case. Mileage for the Exige is reported as 23 city, 42 cruising and 32 combined. Remember, those are British figures and are generally closer to real world than the EPA estimates."

    I saw much lower estimates. Maybe they were wrong. I'll do more research.
    ___

    "We were talking about fuel economy, emissions and such. SUVs are horrible cars from fuel-consumption/pollution standpoint. They'd never pass even basic emission tests if they didn't get special exemptions for being SUVs. The fuel efficiency is appalling due to the weight and fact that most of them are equipped with automatic transmissions."

    That doesn't answer the question.
    ___

    "We were also talking about how you seem to think that engine designers have to choose between power and emissions. They don't. Modern engines are proof of that."

    Obviously you can reduce emissions and reduce fuel consumption by reducing power. I'm not saying that the less powerful engine will always use less fuel or have lower emissions, but it's usually true. If that diesel that you mentioned has around 160 hp or more, and if it uses less fuel and has lower emissions than my current favorite, then it's my new favorite. As I already mentioned, I believe that technology should be used to reduce emissions and consumption, rather than increase power. When I choose a favorite engine, I don't choose an acceptable amount of consumption and then find the most powerful engine in that range. I do it the opposite way. I choose an acceptable amount of power, and then find the engine that uses the least fuel while delivering that much power. As my favorite engine changes, the power output will stay the same, while the consumption goes down.
    ___

    "In recent testing in London and California, it was determined that the exhaust of a Saab 9000 was actually cleaner than the air it took in."

    If that was true, it would be safe to route the exhaust through the cabin, with the windows closed.
    ___

    "Name one."

    I've already named many. Let's not be redundant, again.
    ___

    "The idea that the Corvette is a "great car", on the other hand, is laughable."

    I was referring to the Mosler, not the Corvette. Look at the title of this thread and your first post in it.

    Since you brought up the Corvette, I guess it depends on what you compare it to. Do you know how inexpensive they are in the USA?

     
  10. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    The engine in the Z06 is moving a heavier car than the S2000, yet it still uses less fuel. Ofcourse it's geared higher
    ---

    But when it is running at the same revs, it uses more fuel than the S2000, thus the engine is less efficient. Corvettes have always been gas guzzers. I'm surprised you would try to argue otherwise.


    ---
    The engines in the S2000 and the 360 demonstrate what happens when specific output is too high.
    ---

    The *only* reason the S2000's mileage is so low is because of the preposterous gearing with which the car is afflicted. With a proper rear-end and transmission ratios, it would easily get mileage in the 30s while cruising. At freeway speeds, the engine is well over 4000rpm. Tell me that doesn't play hell with the mileage.

    You don't get that much power out of an engine that small and qualify for Ultra-Low Emission status in California without being damned efficient about burning fuel.

    I agree that making the F20C engine a 2.0 liter 4-pot was a mistake because of the problems getting decent torque. They should have made it a 3.0 liter I-6. That would have been better for power, efficiency and everything else except packaging but they could have got around that by making the wheelbase slightly larger and even turning the car into a 2+2.



    ---
    I said: "If I put gigantic drum brakes on a car that only performed as well as normal-sized discs, would you say they performance was the same?"

    You replied: If they stopped the car as well as the discs, and if the unsprung weight didn't change, then yes.
    ---

    But you'd be wrong. First of all the two braking system don't offer equivalent performance because one has to be larger than the other.

    Also, there are lots of disadvantages with drum brakes - even if braking performance is equal in a single test.

    The same is true of large-displacement pushrod engines in performance cars.


    ---
    That doesn't answer the question.
    ---

    Sorry, what was the question again?


    ---
    I've already named many.
    ---

    I must have missed all of them. Care to refresh my memory?




    ---
    Since you brought up the Corvette, I guess it depends on what you compare it to. Do you know how inexpensive they are in the USA?
    ---

    They are inexpensive because they have to be.
     
  11. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "But when it is running at the same revs, it uses more fuel than the S2000, thus the engine is less efficient. Corvettes have always been gas guzzers. I'm surprised you would try to argue otherwise."

    They're not designed to run at the same revs.

    Corvettes were gas guzzlers when all powerful cars were. Currently there's no car that comes close to the Z06's combination of fuel efficiency and power. Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel.
    ___

    "The *only* reason the S2000's mileage is so low is because of the preposterous gearing with which the car is afflicted. With a proper rear-end and transmission ratios, it would easily get mileage in the 30s while cruising. At freeway speeds, the engine is well over 4000rpm. Tell me that doesn't play hell with the mileage."

    The engine's design requires that gearing.
    ___

    "Also, there are lots of disadvantages with drum brakes - even if braking performance is equal in a single test"

    If you could somehow eliminate all of those disadvantages, then I could praise a car with drum brakes. That's called "unbiased". It's necessary for a valid opinion.
    ___
     
  12. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    They're [LS6 and F20C engines] not designed to run at the same revs.
    ---

    I think what you meant to say is that they aren't designed with the same rev range. However, in that part of the rev range that they both share (idle to 6500rpm) they are both designed to run in that range, wouldn't you say?


    Still, it is only fair to compare one engine's fuel consumption to another when they're at the same rpm. You can certainly argue that the LS6 puts out more power but you can't argue that is uses less fuel.


    ---
    Currently there's no car that comes close to the Z06's combination of fuel efficiency and power. Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel.
    ---

    We've already established that the Noble gets better mileage. Any TVR would also.

    Plus, raw horsepower is meaningless in terms of performance and I assume that's what you mean when you start talking about horsepower and Corvettes. What really affects a car's performance is the power:weight ratio.

    But let's confine ourselves to discussing cars available for sale in the US because that will show the Corvette in the best possible light. Bad news: it still doesn't come out on top.

    (figures are from Edmunds.com)

    2004 Corvette:

    Manual: 19mpg/28mpg
    Auto: 18mpg/25mpg
    ----


    Now, you want cars with around 400bhp...

    2004 Jaguar XJR: (auto only, 390bhp but more torque than the 'vette) 18mpg/28mpg. Equivalent to the manual Corvette. If the Jag were offered with a manual transmission, we could expect even better mileage.

    2004 Porshe 911: (315bhp but car is lighter so performance is similar) manual 18mpg/26mpg, auto 18mpg/26mpg. The manual loses out slightly but the auto does slightly better due to the curious choice of ratios Porsche made for their boxes.


    Those are just two. I could go on... My point is that while the Corvette's fuel economy is impressive considering all the things going against it (car's weight, pushrod engine, 2 valves/cylinder, etc.) it can and should do better. It isn't the best in its class - or ANY class, for that matter. Your contention that it is, simply isn't true.


    ---
    I said: "The *only* reason the S2000's mileage is so low is because of the preposterous gearing with which the car is afflicted. With a proper rear-end and transmission ratios, it would easily get mileage in the 30s while cruising. At freeway speeds, the engine is well over 4000rpm. Tell me that doesn't play hell with the mileage."

    You replied: The engine's design requires that gearing.
    ---

    No, actually, it doesn't. That's the sad thing. The 6-speed box's rations can and should be farther apart. This engine has a power-band as wide as some car's usable rev ranges. A proper set of ratios would preserve the shortness of the low gears, allowing for vivid acceleration while lenthening the high gears to allow for more comfortable cruising and dramatically increased mileage. There's no reason why the S2000 shouldn't get an EPA highway rating in the low 40s and real-world cruising mileage in the mid 30s. It is as aerodynamic as any convertible could be


    ---
    If you could somehow eliminate all of those disadvantages, then I could praise a car with drum brakes. That's called "unbiased". It's necessary for a valid opinion.
    ---

    But you can't eliminate the disadvantages. That's the reason drum brakes are no longer in use for road cars. It is also the reason why all sensible car companies have moved away from using pushrods to drive their valvetrain. Progress is a good thing. Unless you design cars in Detroit.


     
  13. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "We've already established that the Noble gets better mileage."

    We established that one particular owner claims to get similar mileage with a less powerful and MUCH lighter car.
    ___

    "Any TVR would also."

    Please provide us with some data.
    ___

    "But let's confine ourselves to discussing cars available for sale in the US because that will show the Corvette in the best possible light. Bad news: it still doesn't come out on top.

    (figures are from Edmunds.com)

    2004 Corvette:

    Manual: 19mpg/28mpg
    Auto: 18mpg/25mpg"

    The Z06 isn't available with an automatic.
    ___

    "2004 Jaguar XJR: (auto only, 390bhp but more torque than the 'vette) 18mpg/28mpg. Equivalent to the manual Corvette. If the Jag were offered with a manual transmission, we could expect even better mileage.

    2004 Porshe 911: (315bhp but car is lighter so performance is similar) manual 18mpg/26mpg, auto 18mpg/26mpg. The manual loses out slightly but the auto does slightly better due to the curious choice of ratios Porsche made for their boxes."

    Neither one of those is higher than 19/28, even though you chose a car with 90 less hp.
    ___

    "No, actually, it doesn't. That's the sad thing. The 6-speed box's rations can and should be farther apart. This engine has a power-band as wide as some car's usable rev ranges. A proper set of ratios would preserve the shortness of the low gears, allowing for vivid acceleration while lenthening the high gears to allow for more comfortable cruising and dramatically increased mileage. There's no reason why the S2000 shouldn't get an EPA highway rating in the low 40s and real-world cruising mileage in the mid 30s. It is as aerodynamic as any convertible could be"

    That engine has a very flat torque curve. That's much different from a flat power curve because power = torque x revs. It makes its power at high revs. You have to keep it near redline to extract all of its acceleration. It also has a high redline. It's geared low because it needs to be. If it was geared as high as a Z06, it wouldn't have enough wheel torque to pull out of a parking space, much less cover the 1/4 mi in 12.4 sec.
    ___

    "But you can't eliminate the disadvantages. That's the reason drum brakes are no longer in use for road cars."

    That doesn't provide any evidence for or against the effectiveness of pushrods. I've provided ALOT of evidence FOR the effectiveness of pushrods. You'll probably ask me "where?", but I'm not going to be redundant. I admit that they're not good for specific output, but you need to ask yourself why you would consider specific output when you already considered size, weight, COG, longevity, maintenance costs, reliability, refinement, throttle response, fuel consumption, and power. Specific output is meaningless when you don't tax displacement
     
  14. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "What do you mean 'cancelled out'?"

    I thought you would have figured it out, but apparently not. Put it this way:
    1) Cerbera 4.5's are rated at 420 hp.
    2) Cerbera 4.5 Red Roses are rated at 440 hp.
    3) You haven't shown me a single 4.5 that's put out 420 hp.
    4) I've shown at least 4-5 that are *well down* from 420 hp. Closer to 350.
    5) You haven't shown *any* 4.5's that put out more than 420.
    6) You've shown only 1 Red Rose that matched the power figure; without a dyno graph, as you requested.
    7) There are 2 or 3 Red Roses that that don't make the advertised 440 hp. One of which is about 10% down.

    From all of this, you can conclude that Cerbera 4.5's (especially the standard ones) put out the advertised hp? LMAO!
    If I showed you 20 Cerbera 4.5's that made 350 bhp, and you showed me one that made 480 bhp, are we then to assume that TVR Cerbera 4.5's put out *more* hp than advertised?


    "Your contention was that the design was inherently incapable of producing the output claimed by the factory."

    Quit lying. I never said anything about it being inherently incapable of anything. I'm just stating the facts: most Cerbera 4.5's dynoe'd put out closer to 320-350 hp. That's far down from the stated 420.
    Of course your test counts. Are you saying those numerous other tests I've shown *don't* count? That's awfully generous of you.


    "Hmmm, does that mean if I post a dyno chart that says a Corvette can't make the promised output that your claims are 'cancelled out' by mine?"

    This is EXACTLY what I'm asking for. Show me 10 dyno charts that are under the quoted figure, and I'll bet I can find 10 (or more) that meet or exceed the quoted figure. This tells us that Corvette figures are right on the mark.


    "What makes you say it is the first?"

    What makes you say it's not?


    "At least you used the word 'fettling' correctly this time."

    I know it's a factory option. That does nothing to address the fact that standard 4.5's don't put out the advertised ponies.


    "The V8s have a tendency to overfuel if they are out of adjustment."

    Impossible. The AJP8 is British. It's made by TVR. It cannot possibly have a tendency to do anything bad. It's perfect.


    "BTW, 428bhp is only 2.6% down from factory spec."

    Yes. Notice you said *down*. Show me these numerous Cerberas that make *more* than the factory spec.


    "if someone owned a Z06 that only made 360bhp or 350bhp or, God forbid, 330bhp, I'd advise them to take it back to the dealer for warranty service. Wouldn't you?
    Or are you going to say that no Z06 has ever made that little?"

    Considering the thousands (possibly 10's of thousands by now) of Z06's, I would be very surprised if there *weren't* a Z06 that made 330 bhp. But for every Z06 that has made this little, there's another that's made 420 or 430.
    The onus is on you to show the low end of the spectrum.


    "What's really funny is to think how much power an AJP8 that displaced 5.7 liters would produce. By my calculation, 557bhp. Compare that to Chevy's best efforts at 405bhp."

    Best? LOL. What makes you think that's their best effort? If they were to offer an engine that would pass only Euro II emissions, and with only a 2-year warranty, I'm sure they could do more than 405 bhp.
    Is your calculation based on a straight hp/l argument? You've already agreed that all else being equal, hp does not necessarily rise in direct relation to displacement. Watch the price of that AJP8 rise yet again. You can bet its already dubious "reliability" would suffer even further.
     
  15. #140 Guibo, Jun 6, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "One could reasonably argue that Chevy didn't really want to build a DHC Corvette and so they made certain that the option wouldn't be popular."

    One could also reasonably argue against that: if the DOHC engine is that much better, GM would continue using it and spread it throughout its product range throughout the world. Such an engine could be used (in milder form, if necessary) in the Camaro, and in their Australian Holden division. You're telling me that a company that likes to share platforms (nationally and globally), stretch resources as far as they can go (call it "cheap," if you will), and share engines throughout various models is somehow only going to limit the LT5 in *one* particular model? OK...
    Face it, most Corvette owners couldn't give two shits about DOHC technology. And the few that did apparently didn't even register on GM's radar. Thus, no DOHC-powered Corvette since the ZR-1.


    "It is like stereo speakers - if you play your stereo at 10 all the time, you're going to burn out your speakers fairly quickly. If you use them normally (which includes the occasional blast) then they will last much, much longer."

    Mine go to 11. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>


    "A blown fuse is a 'horror story'?"

    I'm talking about the author of that thread. The author didn't mention anything about a blown fuse. He's given the advice about the blown fuse (by someone else in that thread), and yet his Cerbera is at Blackpool anyway? Hmm...


    "
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=55148&f=13&h=0
    ---
    I notice you left out the bit that says it was a blown head-gasket."

    Did you notice that his engine is on its *third* rebuild? Or are you saying 3 blown head-gaskets is par for the course, for Cerberas (assuming the other 2 were for gaskets)?


    "One could argue that maybe he wasn't ready for a TVR."

    Why does one have to be "ready" for a TVR? You're trying to convince me that owning one is no different from owning a Porsche, Ferrari, or BMW.
    Mini? LOL. I understand those 1st-year Minis have all sorts of gremlins. If he can stick it out in that, and not return to TVR, well...that says something about the Cerbera, doesn't it?
    Apparently, all ex-TVR owners must still worship the marque, lest they be considered rubbish in the eyes of Jonny Gwynne. Let's not forget that jamieheasman (who responded in that thread) also had his '97 Cerbera AJP rebuilt.


    "The second link refers to a Speed Six engine with the finger-follower problem, not a V8."

    Ah, so it is. We'll swap with these then:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=13743&f=6&h=0

    "There was a hairline crack in the block which would only let a small amount of steam out until finally it develop into a full blown crack, hence the gushing water."
    --Expat
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=56404&f=6&h=0

    "In Spring 2002 WH covered a full engine rebuild and in summer 2002 a new gearbox on my four and a half year old Cerbera 4.5."
    --b19toy
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=53092&f=6&h=0

    New cams, less than 30K miles:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/members/showCar.asp?carId=173

    "I had an inner head bolt snap too."
    --williamball
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=46771&f=6&h=0



    "If you believe the insurance company, the engine was run with low oil which caused the crankshaft bearings to seize which would certainly explain a snapped crankshaft."

    Reading the rest of the responses, it seems there's very little reason to believe the insurance company. The rest of the response indicate that W/H will do whatever they can to weasel their way out of accepting a claim. Imagine that! An insurance company trying to weasel their way out of accepting claims...


    "---
    Cerbie with knackered engine on ebay:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=98191&f=6&h=0
    ---
    Yeah, and no indication of WHY the engine failed."

    Let me guess. angrybeats sent one of his henchmen over to "abuse" the engine at startup?



    "Incidentally, on a related thread, the question of replacing the AJP8 with an LS6 was raised...
    Only to be shot down because it wouldn't fit."

    Was it? Post a link to that thread. I saw one mentioning the Ford DOHC engine, but not one with an LS6. I doubt alex200mph has even ever seen an LS6 in the presence of the AJP8 or a Cerbera engine bay.


    "Hmmm, if the sixes were really as bad as you think, people would surely be flocking to warn him against such a move."

    They're probably well-worn with that issue as you. No doubt the prospective buyer has the ability to click on the Tuscan forum link.
    Or are you now saying that there's no difference in reliability between the Speed 6 and AJP8?


    "Yes, you can easily find out the truth - by talking to people who service the cars - which the article's author did. Why do you suppose that every in-depth article (at least every one I've read) about buying modern TVRs talks about the reputation for unreliability not being as bad as people seem to think?"

    "People"? I saw them only talking to one person who services the cars. Another person who services Cerberas (joospeed) agrees the article doesn't tell the whole truth.


    "Since you seem to consider blown head-gaskets as outright engine failures, I guess so."

    Send me the links. Then we'll see.


    "Like I said before, the first production road-car with more than 2 valves/cylinder was the Jensen Healey roadster released in 1972 with the Lotus 907 engine. Can you name a production road-car built prior to that with more than 2 valves/cylinder."

    Whether they were production (you're talking mass-produced just to slant things in your favor), it doesn't matter. We were talking about the relative age of the *technology*. DOHC, whether multivalve or otherwise, have been around longer than your timetable for pushrods.


    "http://www.lambocars.com/history.htm
    '...The [3464 cc] engine was finished soon [May 1963] and was able to pump out about 400 Bhp at 11,000 rpm'"

    "Was able" = "it did"? No, I don't think so. There's a book by John Simister called "Legendary Engines" that talks about this engine (among others).
    http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0760319413.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
    Bizzarrini said he only estimated that's how high the engine would rev with sufficient fueling; it was never actually tested to that rpm.


    "The very same engine design continues to this day in the Murcielago - albiet with more displacement (6192cc), two extra valves/cylinder, variable valve-timing and EFI.

    It is a great engine."

    Nobody said it wasn't. And even the Murcielago, with all the bells & whistles, can't rev to 11,000 rpm. Not even close. So why slag the LS6 for not doing the same?
     
  16. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    We established that one particular owner claims to get similar mileage with a less powerful and MUCH lighter car.
    ---

    It isn't that much less powerful and don't forget it hasn't got the Corvette's long gearing.

    Or are you suggesting that this one guy's experience with regard to mileage is a fluke?

    BTW, it isn't "similar mileage" at all. Drive a Corvette full-out and you be lucky to come within 10mpg of that figure.


    ---
    Please provide us with some data [about TVR mileage]
    ---

    Well, from personal experience, when I drove a Tuscan for a week, I flogged the nuts off it and still got around 25mpg. The people I know who drive their vettes in a similar manner get in the mid teens.

    I can't find the official fuel-consumption figures, but I seem to recall them being in the low 30s for cruising with a combined figure in the mid to high 20s which is consistent with my experience.



    ---
    The Z06 isn't available with an automatic
    ---

    No, but the standard model is and they claim the same mileage for the Z06 as they do for the standard with the stick shift (which someone should think to question) so I figured it was a fair comparison.


    ---
    Neither one of those is higher than 19/28, even though you chose a car with 90 less hp.
    ---

    But that's not what you said. You said: "Currently there's no car that comes close to the Z06's combination of fuel efficiency and power. Every other car near 400 hp uses alot more fuel"

    I showed you two that contradict your claim.


    ---
    You have to keep it [S2000] near redline to extract all of its acceleration. It also has a high redline. It's geared low because it needs to be. If it was geared as high as a Z06, it wouldn't have enough wheel torque to pull out of a parking space, much less cover the 1/4 mi in 12.4 sec.
    ---

    The car is reasonably peppy even at low revs but once the high-lift cams kick in at around 6000rpm, the power-delivery increases greatly. It is like a really laggy turbo. You don't have to keep the engine at 9000rpm to get max power from it. You've got almost 3000rpm of usable high power.

    My point was that you could spread the ratios out far more than Honda aready does. You could keep the existing final-drive ratio and leave 1st and second gear the way they are but begin by progressively lengthening the higher ratios so that 6th becomes a proper 30mph/1000rpm cruising gear. Granted you would have to upshift to pass but that's not exactly a hardship.

    The S2000's transmission was designed for a car with either a longer final-drive or else a car with an ordinary engine.


    ---
    I've provided ALOT of evidence FOR the effectiveness of pushrods.
    ---

    No, you haven't. The fact that ossified Detroit automakers continue to pound them out isn't evidence of anything but their own hidebound nature.

    There is a reason why they are the only ones doing it while everyone else has moved on to inherently superior designs.


    ---
    Specific output is meaningless when you don't tax displacement
    ---

    Well, many countries do just that. It is the way of things. Apart from that, there are, as I said before, reasons why smaller-displacement engines are better than larger displacement engines.

    Being physically smaller, they allow the design of smaller, lighter cars which in turn allow better fuel economy.


     
  17. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    You haven't shown me a single 4.5 that's put out 420 hp.
    ---

    And from this, you conclude that they don't exist? Come on, not even you believe that.


    ---
    I've shown at least 4-5 that are *well down* from 420 hp. Closer to 350.
    ---

    So what? As I keep trying to explain to you, we have no way of knowing WHY they are down in power. Did they leave the factory that way or is it due to some problem the car developed betweeen delivery to the customer and the subsequent dyno test. You have no way of knowing. Yet you still try to content that these figures are the absolute limit for the car in question.



    ---
    There are 2 or 3 Red Roses that that don't make the advertised 440 hp. One of which is about 10% down.
    ---

    The other is 2.6% down. What is your point?


    ---
    I'm just stating the facts: most Cerbera 4.5's dynoe'd put out closer to 320-350 hp. That's far down from the stated 420.
    ---

    That isn't a "fact" at all. The fact is you don't have any idea what "most" Cerbera 4.5s do. The best you can do is take some third-hand and competely unquantified tests and attempt to use them to justify your blind contempt for a car company whose products you know bugger-all about.



    ---
    Of course your test counts
    ---

    No, it doesn't actually. It means NOTHING. It is a competely random, unqualified, unquantified and unsubstantiated allegation. It means absolutely nothing and exactly the same as every single one of the figures you posted.

    What is meaningful is that British law requires TVR to say what they do and do what they say.


    ---
    Show me 10 dyno charts that are under the quoted figure, and I'll bet I can find 10 (or more) that meet or exceed the quoted figure. This tells us that Corvette figures are right on the mark.
    ---

    It tells us nothing of the kind. Go find a statistician who can sit down with you and draw you a picture of what needs to happen in order for a person to be able to extrapolate conclusions about a large group from a small number of samples.

    Until you get a basic grasp of statistical sampling practices, don't try to engage in it.




    ---
    "What makes you say it is the first?"

    What makes you say it's not?
    ---

    Ah, typical of your argument style. Make an unsubstantiated claim and then when someone questions it, try to force them to prove their rejection of it.

    If you were only half as clever as you think you are.


    ---
    That does nothing to address the fact that standard 4.5's don't put out the advertised ponies.
    ---

    That's not a "fact" at all. That is your unsubstantiated allegation.



    ---
    I said: "The V8s have a tendency to overfuel if they are out of adjustment."

    You repied: Impossible. The AJP8 is British. It's made by TVR. It cannot possibly have a tendency to do anything bad. It's perfect.
    ---

    Ah... Sarcasm. Har, har.

    Seriously, no one ever said the AJP8 was perfect, least of all me.


    ---
    Considering the thousands (possibly 10's of thousands by now) of Z06's, I would be very surprised if there *weren't* a Z06 that made 330 bhp. But for every Z06 that has made this little, there's another that's made 420 or 430.
    ---

    And you know this how? You don't even know how many Z06 have been made, how can you possibly know how much power each of them produced when they left the factory and whether or not that power increased or decreased over time?


    ---
    The onus is on you to show the low end of the spectrum.
    ---

    The onus is first on you to show that you even know what you're talking about. You have, so far, failed to do so. All you've done up to this point is talk shit about a car you know nothing about and couldn't legally drive even if you were able to buy one. You haven't even been in the presence of one. Sorry, a fleeting glimpse of something you thought might be a TVR from a distance doesn't count.
     
  18. #143 Guibo, Jun 6, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    "And from this, you conclude that they don't exist? Come on, not even you believe that."

    No, from this I can conclude they are few and far between. Go ahead. Amuse me. Show me even *one*.


    "As I keep trying to explain to you, we have no way of knowing WHY they are down in power.
    Yet you still try to content that these figures are the absolute limit for the car in question."

    Really? I said they're the absolute limit? I want you to go back and show me where I've said this is the absolute limit. Otherwise, quit lying.


    "---
    There are 2 or 3 Red Roses that that don't make the advertised 440 hp. One of which is about 10% down.
    ---
    The other is 2.6% down. What is your point?"

    Are you really that daft? I'll say it again. 2.6% down, or 10% down, whatever. Point of fact is, they're both *down*. You haven't shown one yet that was up. If an equal number of Red Roses are down, and an equal number of Red Roses are up (and by about the same margins), we can pretty much easily conclude Red Roses put out what they claim. So far, we have 3 that are down, and only one that is within 2.6% (and still down). We have none that are over. Even you should be able to figure out this trend.


    "That isn't a 'fact' at all. The fact is you don't have any idea what 'most' Cerbera 4.5s do. The best you can do is take some third-hand and competely unquantified tests and attempt to use them to justify your blind contempt for a car company whose products you know bugger-all about."

    Blind contempt? Is that why I've said I'd rather have the Tuscan S over the Z06 and Viper in other threads? Oh dear, you don't know about those, now do you? (This was long before you even joined, BTW.) For a guy who has contempt for TVR's, I sure do have a lot of pictures and wallpapers of them on my hard drive.
    They are facts. Just because *you* say they're not doesn't make them facts. It's a fact that on the Pistonheads Dyno Day, the Cerbera was down on power. The owner of the car is a member of PH, and never disputed it; for how could he? It was on the printout shown to the members present at the rolling road session.

    Third-hand and completely unquantified tests? WTF is this?:
    "Just got back from my RR dyno run. Got 339bhp @5302rpm and 312lb/ft torque @4550rpm."
    --tbloke99
    "actually power and torque both about right for your average 4.5"
    --joospeed (what the hell would JOOSPEED know about Cerberas??)
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=6&h=0&t=37500

    "I have recently bought a new Cerbera 4.5 only find out today it only has 320 BHP and 328 LBS/FT Torque; what's up with that?"
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=55708&f=6&h=0

    "The dyno/PreRedRose.jpg first one is pre Red Rose conversion, with 350bhp and 300lbft, this is typical for the best standard 4.5's."
    -- http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=34643&f=6&h=0

    Sorry, but those aren't third-hand accounts at all. Those are TVR *owners* telling us whay their Cerberas did on the dyno. By your reasoning, they were *all* out of tune or whatever...pretty unlikely. By that reasoning (and lack of evidence), one should assume that a Z06 making 420 bhp will actually be making 450+ on a good day. Not bloody likely.


    "It means absolutely nothing and exactly the same as every single one of the figures you posted."

    Many of the figures I posted are substantiated with actual dyno charts. Some of which I've posted on these forums before. While your 437 bhp Red Rose dyno chart is AWOL, that's the best we can go on, short of you coming right out and calling the guy a liar.


    "What is meaningful is that British law requires TVR to say what they do and do what they say."

    You've already conceded that the Brits tend to put up with more than they should. AFTER I showed the thread where you had earlier said it.


    "It tells us nothing of the kind. Go find a statistician who can sit down with you and draw you a picture of what needs to happen in order for a person to be able to extrapolate conclusions about a large group from a small number of samples.
    Until you get a basic grasp of statistical sampling practices, don't try to engage in it."

    When a large majority of a small group of Cerberas thus far tested show that their cars are down on power (some by as much as 24%!)...we can automatically assume that Cerberas put out as much as the company claim? Yeah...right. Surely even you can't be so thick as to come to such a conclusion.


    "Ah, typical of your argument style. Make an unsubstantiated claim and then when someone questions it, try to force them to prove their rejection of it."

    Then go ahead and SHOW me where a Cerbera Red Rose has made as much as that before. Go ahead. Is it really that difficult? If so, why do you suppose that is...?


    "And you know this how? You don't even know how many Z06 have been made, how can you possibly know how much power each of them produced when they left the factory and whether or not that power increased or decreased over time?"

    I don't know how many Z06's have been made because I'm not a fan of Z06's. (I can tell you exactly how many BMW 2002 Turbos were made because that information is far more interesting to me.) The actual number matters not. What does matter is that from a poll of 258 Z06 owners on one forum, the trend shows that Z06's tend to dyno around 412-422 bhp. You don't have to be a statistician to understand that.


    "The onus is first on you to show that you even know what you're talking about. You have, so far, failed to do so. All you've done up to this point is talk shit about a car you know nothing about and couldn't legally drive even if you were able to buy one. You haven't even been in the presence of one. Sorry, a fleeting glimpse of something you thought might be a TVR from a distance doesn't count."

    Ah...poor Jon Gwynne. Bitching about the fact that he can't find a single Cerbera 4.5 that has produced more than the quoted bhp (against the numerous that have produced FAR LESS than the quoted bhp), and weaseling his way out of not being able to show Red Rose dyno charts to offset the low figures. Not even a one? Tsk, tsk.
    That TVR I saw was not more than 50-60' away at its closest point. I saw it from the front, the side, and the rear. Nothing else on the American market looks quite like it. There was no mistaking it. I later perused faisalkhan's website, and noticed that there is indeed a blue Chimaera that resides in the SF area.
     
  19. #144 Guibo, Jun 6, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    And regarding fuel economy, you can't directly compare the Noble's mileage against the Z06's. The former is in British imperial gallons, the latter in US gallons. (This is also why the Honda S2000's fuel economy is rated higher in the UK than it is in the US; in the UK, it gets 35 mpg on the highway; its US EPA highway rating is 28 mpg.) 23 imperial gallons is ~19 US mpg. But that kind of mileage is an aberration for Nobles. Here's some that get 14 in the city, 25 on the highway:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=56210&f=26&h=0
    That comes out to 12/21 US mpg. That's not better than the Z06.
    Autocar's Noble average 17.8 mpg. That's 14.8 mpg US.

    Regarding the S2000, it's geared that way to make the most of its powerband. It simply doesn't have the low-end grunt to pull while in the lower rev range; the VTEC mechanism helps, compared to other DOHC I-4's. But it still really cannot match the higher-strung 6's, let alone an LS1-powered Corvette (let alone a Z06) for flexibility. As a result, when you're in 6th gear in the Z06 and you need to pass on the highway, you can really do it without changing gears. Try the same in the S2000, and the results aren't quite as impressive. Just for reference, the old 385-hp Z06 did 50-70 in top gear in 8.6 seconds (C&D 8/00). The S2000 takes 9.4 seconds to do the same (C&D 8/03; the best ever for the S2000). Might not seem like a lot of difference, until you consider
    1) that's only a 20 mph gap
    2) at 70+ mph, the difference only increases
    3) the overall gearing of the Z06 in top is 1.92:1; the overall gearing of the S2000 in top is 3.32; that's 42% shorter than the Z06.

    At WOT throttle, the LS6 will consume more gas. But with the LS6, the Z06 driver doesn't have to drive his car anywhere *near* the level of the S2000 driver to attain the same amount of acceleration. Ie, in most daily driving traffic situations, there's probably not a helluva lot of difference between them, but once out on the highway, the Z06's lazier gearing and superior aerodynamics will see it getting 28 mph. Remember, the Z06 is doing more with 5 forward gears than the S2000 is doing with 6. It can get away with that kind of gearing; the S2000 can't.
    FWIW, in R&T's comparo, with the cars driven on the same routes by the same drivers, the Z06 was slightly worse in fuel economy than the 350Z (20 mpg vs 21 mpg) , but better slightly better than the 996 (19 mpg) and the BMW M3 (17 mpg). Autoweek got 21 mpg from their Z06 tester, as did Automobile Magazine with their long-term Z06; their test editor in Europe got 26 mpg while cruising at 93 mph on motorway trips.
     
  20. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    OK, so apparently these are the Z06 production numbers thus far:
    2001: 5,773
    2002: 8,297
    2003: 8,635

    Total: 22,705

    So, yes, there are tens of thousands of them. And most likely a handful that may have produced as little as 320 bhp. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't at least one.

    If you want to hear from Z06 owners, just say the word. Perhaps they'll be interested in talking to you about their cars and how much hp they make. They, of course, would know more about this than you (and all of us combined).
     
  21. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ", there are, as I said before, reasons why smaller-displacement engines are better than larger displacement engines.

    Being physically smaller, they allow the design of smaller, lighter cars which in turn allow better fuel economy."

    Pushrods reduce the size and weight of an engine compared to DOHCs on an engine of equal displacement.
     
  22. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ", there are, as I said before, reasons why smaller-displacement engines are better than larger displacement engines.

    Being physically smaller, they allow the design of smaller, lighter cars which in turn allow better fuel economy."

    You've been drawing conclusions about the fuel efficiency of Nobles and TVRs with alot less data than Guibo's useing.
    ___

    "I showed you two that contradict your claim."

    I stand corrected. I can admit when I'm wrong, but you were FAR more wrong than me and you haven't admitted that you were wrong. First of all, you only showed one car that comes close to the Z06's combination of power and fuel consumption. 315 hp obviously isn't close to 405 hp. The fuel consumption isn't very close either for the 911. Secondly, you said that the Z06 was a gas guzzler, yet you can't even find one car near 400 hp that uses less fuel. You weren't just slightly wrong. You had it completely backwards.
     
  23. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    Damn. Mr.vette, this is by far one of the best entries I have read on this site. Thank you.
     
  24. #149 Jon Gwynne, Jun 8, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    No, from this I can conclude they are few and far between
    ---

    That is an unwarranted assumption.


    ---
    Really? I said they're the absolute limit? I want you to go back and show me where I've said this is the absolute limit.
    ---

    You can't have it both ways. You're arguing that they can't make more than a fraction of their promised power. You are implicitly saying that they can't make their promised output.

    Or are you agreeing with me that those Cerberas that do test lower than the officially-quoted spec have something wrong with them that could be remedied in order to return the car to its standard output.



    ---
    So far, we have 3 that are down, and only one that is within 2.6% (and still down).
    ---

    No, actually, we don't. We have three that appear to be down (we don't know whether the dyno in question is properly calibrated and accurate) but even if they really are, we have no way of knowing why they are and so the claim is really meaningless.


    ---
    Is that why I've said I'd rather have the Tuscan S over the Z06 and Viper in other threads? Oh dear, you don't know about those, now do you? (This was long before you even joined, BTW
    ---

    I must has missed those threads. The ones I've seen you rip on the TVRs pretty hard and seem to prefer Detroit Iron.

    But I'm sure you'll post a link to a thread where you sing the Tuscan's praises.

    BTW, I've been coming to this site since the mid 90s. Just not under this id. I have a bad habit of forgetting my password.



    ---
    Third-hand and completely unquantified tests? WTF is this?:
    "Just got back from my RR dyno run. Got 339bhp @5302rpm and 312lb/ft torque @4550rpm."
    --tbloke99
    "actually power and torque both about right for your average 4.5"
    --joospeed (what the hell would JOOSPEED know about Cerberas??)
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=6&h=0&t=37500
    ---

    What is that? A third-hand and unquantified test. You're simply repeating information that you have no way of knowing whether it is valid or accurate.

    Like I said, we don't know WHY the Cerb is down on power. Julian suspects it has to do with the fuelling being off and I'm perfectly willing to take his word for it. But he might be wrong. Maybe the fuel itself is contaminated, maybe there are problems with the fuel or air intake... the list is endless.


    ---
    Many of the figures I posted are substantiated with actual dyno charts
    ---

    You want to me to dummy up some fake dyno charts for you?



    ---
    You've already conceded that the Brits tend to put up with more than they should. AFTER I showed the thread where you had earlier said it.
    ---

    Which isn't relevant to what the law requires.



    ---
    When a large majority of a small group of Cerberas thus far tested show that their cars are down on power (some by as much as 24%!)...we can automatically assume that Cerberas put out as much as the company claim?
    ---

    We don't have any reason to assume they don't.


    ---
    from a poll of 258 Z06 owners on one forum, the trend shows that Z06's tend to dyno around 412-422 bhp. You don't have to be a statistician to understand that.
    ---

    But a statistician could tell you exactly how meaningless a conclusion drawn from an non-standardized and uncorroborated test of an unrepresentative 1% of the whole.

    ---
    That TVR I saw was not more than 50-60' away at its closest point.
    ---

    And now you're an expert on them?
     
  25. Re: Who says Americans can't build exotic supercars.

    ---
    Pushrods reduce the size and weight of an engine compared to DOHCs on an engine of equal displacement.
    ---

    It depends on the design. Also, the pushrod-driven valvetrain is less efficient than the OHC design which means more of the engine's power is sapped to operate the valves.

     

Share This Page