McLaren F1 and Ferrari F40 vs analogue rivals | evo TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpCbZaD8xc#ws)
Carerra GT sound :wub: :pee:
Very nice...
I heart the carerra GT... oh my my
Those cars must be hard to drive, with such a massive, throbbing erection.
Quote from: S204STi on August 12, 2013, 04:43:44 PM
Those cars must be hard to drive, with such a massive, throbbing erection.
That is actually how they what they were designed for
The F50 has always been my favorite Ferrari, and I know there isn't alot of love for it. Good to see it finally get the recognition it deserves. It's probably the closest thing Ferrari ever made, and ever will make to a road going F1 car.
There are so many cars that claim inspiration from Formula 1, or built to celebrate F1 (Mclaren F1, NSX, etc etc) but short of a Caparo T1, the F50 is one of the few road cars that can really trace it's fundamental design and hardware back to F1.
There is one glaring oversight: Ford GT
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2013, 08:11:08 PM
There is one glaring oversight: Ford GT
Mmm. Not so sure. The other cars in the test, in present day $$$$, were 3-5x as expensive. It would have been a better fit than the Lambo for sure though - probably not easy to get one in the UK...
And yes, the Carrera GT FTW - best sound car ever produced (yes, even more so than the LF-A, but only just).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2013, 08:18:41 PM
Mmm. Not so sure. The other cars in the test, in present day $$$$, were 3-5x as expensive. It would have been a better fit than the Lambo for sure though - probably not easy to get one in the UK...
It doesn't matter if it was nowhere near as pricey. By all accounts it's one of the all time great driver's cars that is just as fast and special as any of the cars in the test.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2013, 08:25:56 PM
It doesn't matter if it was nowhere near as pricey. By all accounts it's one of the all time great driver's cars that is just as fast and special as any of the cars in the test.
It has a pickup truck engine. The original GT40 would have been a better choice
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2013, 08:28:59 PM
It has a pickup truck engine. The original GT40 would have been a better choice
A pickup truck engine? It shared a block and that's it. That engine propelled the car to 217 mph. It is one of the all time great driver's cars in the supercar category. Period.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2013, 08:28:59 PM
It has a pickup truck engine. The original GT40 would have been a better choice
GT40 was never street legal though. I'm sure snobbishness had something to with it.
Thanks for posting that.
Quote from: 565 on August 12, 2013, 06:54:14 PM
The F50 has always been my favorite Ferrari, and I know there isn't alot of love for it. Good to see it finally get the recognition it deserves. It's probably the closest thing Ferrari ever made, and ever will make to a road going F1 car.
There are so many cars that claim inspiration from Formula 1, or built to celebrate F1 (Mclaren F1, NSX, etc etc) but short of a Caparo T1, the F50 is one of the few road cars that can really trace it's fundamental design and hardware back to F1.
Enzo?
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2013, 08:11:08 PM
There is one glaring oversight: Ford GT
Don't forget the Mazda Miata, Subaru BRZ and Infiniti G. :ohyeah:
Quote from: Galaxy on August 13, 2013, 03:30:57 AM
Enzo?
The Enzo is another one of those F1 inspired wannabees that can't really trace much hardware directly back to F1. It's engine was based off a Quattroporte.
The F50 on the other hand, had an engine that could directly trace its origins to F1, and it was bolted directly to the carbon fiber tub, and the transmission was directly bolted to the engine, and the suspension was bolted to the transmission, and they are all load bearing, just like an F1 car.
Quote from: 565 on August 13, 2013, 06:52:10 AM
The Enzo is another one of those F1 inspired wannabees that can't really trace much hardware directly back to F1. It's engine was based off a Quattroporte.
The F50 on the other hand, had an engine that could directly trace its origins to F1, and it was bolted directly to the carbon fiber tub, and the transmission was directly bolted to the engine, and the suspension was bolted to the transmission, and they are all load bearing, just like an F1 car.
To my knowledge there is no shared development between the Quattrporte's engines and the Enzos. The Quattroporte uses a 90° V8, and the Enzo a 65° V12. The Enzo's engine was used, however, in the Maserati MC12.
Quote from: Galaxy on August 13, 2013, 07:23:01 AM
To my knowledge there is no shared development between the Quattrporte's engines and the Enzos. The Quattroporte uses a 90° V8, and the Enzo a 65° V12. The Enzo's engine was used, however, in the Maserati MC12.
And that's because the MC12 was a modified Enzo.
Enzo's engine was based on the V12 going all the way back to the 456GT IIRC
F50's only Achilles' heel was that it was butt ugly and had a kit car exterior. For whatever its worth its my favorite Ferrari in Forza 4 (in LM trim though)
The LM version revs to like 12-13K... glorious
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
And yes, the Carrera GT FTW - best sound car ever produced (yes, even more so than the LF-A, but only just).
Both of those cars on the track together would be glorious to listen too
Zonda would be my pick, but I definitely like the Carerra GT more now.
Hard to say which one I'd go for, but I'm leaning towards the Noble.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 12, 2013, 08:28:59 PM
It has a pickup truck engine. The original GT40 would have been a better choice
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2013, 08:32:06 PM
A pickup truck engine? It shared a block and that's it. That engine propelled the car to 217 mph. It is one of the all time great driver's cars in the supercar category. Period.
The GT engine only shared bore and stroke with other 5.4. The block was aluminum and a new design, as were the 4V heads, crank etc.
No pickup ever had this Al block, 4V heads etc.
The VQ in your cars is far more closely related to the truck engine found in the frontier/pathfinder/Xterra/.
I was just fucking around. Seriously though, GT seems a bit outclassed. Though I guess if the Noble is there it should be there too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 14, 2013, 09:19:06 AM
I was just fucking around. Seriously though, GT seems a bit outclassed. Though I guess if the Noble is there it should be there too.
BTW, I didn't get a chance before, congrats on the car, great pick. You only get once around the ride called life and the next car you get will probably be a family car. It is good to get a fun car while you are young enough to enjoy it.
Although you did have me worried you were going to get another fwd honda or minima, good for you.
Quote from: SVT32V on August 14, 2013, 09:48:15 AM
BTW, I didn't get a chance before, congrats on the car, great pick. You only get once around the ride called life and the next car you get will probably be a family car. It is good to get a fun car while you are young enough to enjoy it.
Although you did have me worried you were going to get another fwd honda or minima, good for you.
Minima. :lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Galaxy on August 13, 2013, 07:23:01 AM
To my knowledge there is no shared development between the Quattrporte's engines and the Enzos. The Quattroporte uses a 90° V8, and the Enzo a 65° V12. The Enzo's engine was used, however, in the Maserati MC12.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 13, 2013, 09:37:15 AM
Enzo's engine was based on the V12 going all the way back to the 456GT IIRC
No the Enzo's V12 was the first Ferrari V12 to be not at all related to the V12's designed by Dino used in Ferrari's past. It represented a totally new road car focused architecture that first debuted on the Quattroporte V8 and subsequently was used in all current Ferrari road engines.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enzo-ferrari-frederic-p-miller/1020513795 (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enzo-ferrari-frederic-p-miller/1020513795)
"The Enzo's V12 engine is the first of a new generation for Ferrari. It is based on the architecture of the V8 found in sister-company Maserati's Quattroporte, using the same basic architecture and 104 mm (4.1 in) bore spacing. This design will replace the former architectures seen in V12 and V8 engines used in most other contemporary Ferraris."
Quote from: SVT32V on August 14, 2013, 09:48:15 AM
BTW, I didn't get a chance before, congrats on the car, great pick. You only get once around the ride called life and the next car you get will probably be a family car. It is good to get a fun car while you are young enough to enjoy it.
Although you did have me worried you were going to get another fwd honda or minima, good for you.
Thanks :praise: :ohyeah:
I don't see a driveway without a sports car in my future. I would rather have a sports car and a rust bucket commuter than some 1 car compromise. Ideally I would move up to a Z4M but if I can't do that I will keep the Z + rebuild the engine once the miles get high enough and get a cheap beater commuter
Tooling around though the engine + trans really feels like an old Maxima... the lineage is strong. Its just in a chassis that isn't complete crap :lol: An old old Maxima would complement this nicely though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 14, 2013, 09:19:06 AM
I was just fucking around. Seriously though, GT seems a bit outclassed.
Hardly. It was faster than the Carrera GT.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 10:53:57 AM
Hardly. It was faster than the Carrera GT.
A GT-R is quicker than an F40. A Camry V6 is quicker than a Miata. There's more to cars being comparable than specs
The Ford GT was not included because it's already been forgotten by everyone except for Ford fan boys. Like I said before, it's an automotive footnote.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 14, 2013, 11:15:29 AM
A GT-R is quicker than an F40. A Camry V6 is quicker than a Miata. There's more to cars being comparable than specs
Analogy FAIL.
Quote from: 565 on August 14, 2013, 11:19:23 AM
The Ford GT was not included because it's already been forgotten by everyone except for Ford fan boys. Like I said before, it's an automotive footnote.
It's one of the very few cars made in recent years that is appreciating in value.
Quote from: SVT32V on August 14, 2013, 08:29:26 AM
The GT engine only shared bore and stroke with other 5.4. The block was aluminum and a new design, as were the 4V heads, crank etc.
No pickup ever had this Al block, 4V heads etc.
The VQ in your cars is far more closely related to the truck engine found in the frontier/pathfinder/Xterra/.
Actually, the VQ in Nissan trucks is as divorced as more so from the VQ in cars - it doesn't even share bore and stroke (4.0L vs. 3.5/3.7L) ;).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 14, 2013, 09:19:06 AM
I was just fucking around. Seriously though, GT seems a bit outclassed. Though I guess if the Noble is there it should be there too.
Not sure I'd call it outclassed but the Ford GT, in terms of raw performance specs, would battle with the F40 for last in this group.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
Actually, the VQ in Nissan trucks is as divorced as more so from the VQ in cars - it doesn't even share bore and stroke (4.0L vs. 3.5/3.7L) ;).
This is like saying the VQ35DE is divorced from the VQ30DE. Aside from deck height, bore and stroke, it's all the same shit.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 10:53:57 AM
Hardly. It was faster than the Carrera GT.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not a chance. The Carerra GT was WAY faster:
Ford GT (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/aston-martin-db9-vs-ferrari-f430-ford-gt-lamborghini-gallardo-m-b-sl65-amg-porsche-911-turbo-s-cabrioletlords-of-envy-powertrain-chart.pdf):
550 hp
3350 lbs
0-60: 3.6
0-100: 8.4
1/4 mile: 12.0 @ 123
Carerra GT (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/porsche-carrera-gt-road-test):
605 hp
3146 lbs
0-60: 3.5
0-100: 6.8
1/4 mile: 11.2 @ 132
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
Actually, the VQ in Nissan trucks is as divorced as more so from the VQ in cars - it doesn't even share bore and stroke (4.0L vs. 3.5/3.7L) ;).
Right, bore and stroke are different, but the aluminum block and 4v heads of the VQ are far more derivative.
No f-150 or other truck has used this AL block or 4V heads.
In fact no other ford vehicle has used the block of the GT with the exception of the 2011-2012 GT500.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
It's one of the very few cars made in recent years that is appreciating in value.
Doesn't mean a whole lot on how well the car performs. When the Ford GT was in its production run the C6 Z06 was just as fast and the faster track car for ~$100,000 less (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0512_exotic_sport_coupes_comparison/viewall.html). Sure, the Ford GT had the styling, panache, history, etc., but it wasn't a performance standout like the other cars in this test. Even today, the C7 Z51 would almost be its equal in performance.
Quote from: 565 on August 14, 2013, 10:22:39 AM
"The Enzo's V12 engine is the first of a new generation for Ferrari. It is based on the architecture of the V8 found in sister-company Maserati's Quattroporte, using the same basic architecture and 104 mm (4.1 in) bore spacing. This design will replace the former architectures seen in V12 and V8 engines used in most other contemporary Ferraris."
Well that is kind of the same discussion that others just had about the GT, and the pickup truck engine. Personally I would argue that it has no real resemblance. It is not like they simply added, or chopped off cylinders, like some companies do.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 12:49:09 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not a chance. The Carerra GT was WAY faster:
Ford GT (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/aston-martin-db9-vs-ferrari-f430-ford-gt-lamborghini-gallardo-m-b-sl65-amg-porsche-911-turbo-s-cabrioletlords-of-envy-powertrain-chart.pdf):
550 hp
3350 lbs
0-60: 3.6
0-100: 8.4
1/4 mile: 12.0 @ 123
Carerra GT (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/porsche-carrera-gt-road-test):
605 hp
3146 lbs
0-60: 3.5
0-100: 6.8
1/4 mile: 11.2 @ 132
I should have been more clear. I was referring to top speed...you know...faster, not quicker.
But let's be honest here. The Carrera GT and the Murcielago are not Analogue Supercars.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:08:26 PM
But let's be honest here. The Carrera GT and the Murcielago are not Analogue Supercars.
Murcielago, sure. Carrera GT? Why not? If the Noble, which I think is newer, is, the Carrera GT should be too.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:07:27 PM
I should have been more clear. I was referring to top speed...you know...faster, not quicker.
Both are listed with a top speed of 205 mph...
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:08:26 PM
But let's be honest here. The Carrera GT and the Murcielago are not Analogue Supercars.
The Carrera GT, with its 6M/T, is most definitely "analogue" (a bit of a stupid term IMO).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 02:35:53 PM
Both are listed with a top speed of 205 mph...
Ford GT's is electronically limited and when the limiter is lifted, it's good to 217 mph.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 02:38:23 PM
The Carrera GT, with its 6M/T, is most definitely "analogue" (a bit of a stupid term IMO).
I thought the Carrera GT had some kind of computer aided clutch engagement, but I guess I was wrong. The Murcielago is certainly not an Analogue Supercar though.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 12:59:30 PM
Doesn't mean a whole lot on how well the car performs. When the Ford GT was in its production run the C6 Z06 was just as fast and the faster track car for ~$100,000 less (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0512_exotic_sport_coupes_comparison/viewall.html). Sure, the Ford GT had the styling, panache, history, etc., but it wasn't a performance standout like the other cars in this test. Even today, the C7 Z51 would almost be its equal in performance.
And at the time it was produced, the Ford GT was right up there performance wise with other supercars of the day. The Z06 just happened to be right up there too.
Imo, the Jaguar XJ220, and the Porsche 959 should have been in there, and not the Murcielago, Carrera GT, or Ford GT.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:54:36 PM
I thought the Carrera GT had some kind of computer aided clutch engagement, but I guess I was wrong. The Murcielago is certainly not an Analogue Supercar though.
It does, but only for pulling off. After that, you're on your own
Quote from: Galaxy on August 14, 2013, 03:02:40 PM
Imo, the Jaguar XJ220, and the Porsche 959 should have been in there, and not the Murcielago, Carrera GT, or Ford GT.
I think the point was to compare the old with the new
I hope they can do something like this when the LaFerrari/P1 become available
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:50:08 PM
Ford GT's is electronically limited and when the limiter is lifted, it's good to 217 mph.
Don't think so; the power just isn't there. 217 mph is Enzo (650 hp) and F12 (730 hp) territory.
The Ford GT was $150k and the Carerra GT $450k, so don't spend too much time feeling bad ;).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 03:36:05 PM
Don't think so; the power just isn't there. 217 mph is Enzo (650 hp) and F12 (730 hp) territory.
The Ford GT was $150k and the Carerra GT $450k, so don't spend too much time feeling bad ;).
I don't feel bad at all since the Ford GT ran with the big dogs of the day for hundreds of thousands of dollars less and looked 10 times better doing it, and it is fact that the Ford GT's 205 mph top speed is electronically limited.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 02:08:26 PM
But let's be honest here. The Carrera GT and the Murcielago are not Analogue Supercars.
I fail to see your point abouy the Carrera GT. Honestly, I would take that before any of the other cars in the test.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 04:43:31 PM
I don't feel bad at all since the Ford GT ran with the big dogs of the day for hundreds of thousands of dollars less and looked 10 times better doing it, and it is fact that the Ford GT's 205 mph top speed is electronically limited.
Its still like the Corvette of supercars. And I'm not talkin C7. Great as it is no way I'm putting it in the category of an F40. It's in that second or even third supercar tier.
According to Jeremy Clarkson in Top Gear series 7, episode 3, the Ford GT has a top speed of 212mph.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 14, 2013, 07:14:36 PM
Its still like the Corvette of supercars. And I'm not talkin C7. Great as it is no way I'm putting it in the category of an F40. It's in that second or even third supercar tier.
IMO the Ford GT doesn't qualify as a super car at all.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2013, 10:29:29 PM
IMO the Ford GT doesn't qualify as a super car at all.
You don't know what a supercar is do you?
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2013, 11:13:35 PM
You don't know what a supercar is do you?
Well, it's not a Ford GT. Cost too little and its tech was too ordinary.
Just as I thought. You have no idea.
The GT fits the bill of a supercar perfectly. Low and wide, 200mph+ top speed, 6 figure price tag, mid engine. I'd be thrilled to have one over most cars in this group.
this argument is futile. i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications.
not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:
"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.[1][2] Supercars are marketed by automakers as unusual and include limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard-looking cars modified for power and performance, as well as models that appeal to enthusiasts from smaller manufacturers.[3]
"Supercar" is also a label custom car retrofitters reserve for their showcase, one-of-a-kind project vehicles; typically these are very extensively modified collectible muscle cars, sports cars or grand touring automobiles updated to the very latest "streetable" racing technology.[4][5]"
A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar. A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 15, 2013, 06:34:57 AM
A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar. A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.
Allright, but if a supercar gets spanked by a car made from mass production parts, is it really a supercar?
Quote from: veeman on August 15, 2013, 06:24:41 AM
this argument is futile. i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications.
not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:
"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.
That just ruled out most of the cars in this test.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 15, 2013, 06:34:57 AM
A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar. A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.
What the fuck are you talking about? The only part on the GT that is shared with any other Ford vehicle is the block design. It's not even made from the same material.
Quote from: veeman on August 15, 2013, 06:24:41 AM
this argument is futile. i don't think there is a strict definition of "supercar" which is held standard by automotive journalists/publications.
not that wikipedia is an automotive authority but it's usually pretty accurate:
"A supercar is a very expensive and fast sports car.[1][2] Supercars are marketed by automakers as unusual and include limited production specials from an "elite" automaker, standard-looking cars modified for power and performance, as well as models that appeal to enthusiasts from smaller manufacturers.[3]
"Supercar" is also a label custom car retrofitters reserve for their showcase, one-of-a-kind project vehicles; typically these are very extensively modified collectible muscle cars, sports cars or grand touring automobiles updated to the very latest "streetable" racing technology.[4][5]"
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 15, 2013, 06:34:57 AM
A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar. A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.
Ford GT just didn't have the tech of they day. Carbon fiber use in any meaningful manner? Nope. High winding N/A V10 or V12 motor? Nope. Any sort of ultra slick tech like the magnetic shocks? Nope.
There were/are very few super cars. Ford GT was not, is not, nor will ever be one of them.
Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 15, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)
F40 used a twin turbo V8 so it can't be a supercar either.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 15, 2013, 09:10:20 AM
Ford GT just didn't have the tech of they day. Carbon fiber use in any meaningful manner? Nope. High winding N/A V10 or V12 motor? Nope. Any sort of ultra slick tech like the magnetic shocks? Nope.
There were/are very few super cars. Ford GT was not, is not, nor will ever be one of them.
Cougs, your trolling is well below par in this thread.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 15, 2013, 06:34:57 AM
A $150K car made from (modified) mass production parts will never be a supercar. A good car? Sure. Faster than a supercar? Why not? But they aren't in the same category. A Camry V6 is faster than a 320i but we don't call it a sport sedan.
What, outside of the engine and maybe some switchgear, was "mass-produced" about the GT? It was hardly a parts bin car.
If a supercar can't use any mass produced parts, or modified mass produced parts, there pretty much are no supercars. Even if you limit it to major subsystems like engines and transmission, you eliminate the vast majority of cars from the category.
Your criteria rules out everything Noble has ever made as a supercar. They use modified versions of other companies' mass produced motors in all of their cars (Ford Duratec V6s in everything up to the M600 and a Volvo V8 in the 600). Also rules out the Saleen S7, Audi R8, Lambo Gallardo, Pagani Zonda, the original Koenigsegg CC8S, Spyker C8, and even the McLaren F1 (its engine was just an upgraded version of the mass-produced M70 used in the 7- and 8-series).
Quote from: Galaxy on August 15, 2013, 07:01:29 AM
Allright, but if a supercar gets spanked by a car made from mass production parts, is it really a supercar?
Sure.... any yutz with a GT-R and a checkbook can build something that will spank anything but a Veyron. A lot of the early supercars were really bad to drive. Still supercars though.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 15, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
Why do supercars have to have special tech? Why do they have to have a V10 or V12? Why do they have to use carbon fiber? (Ferrari is getting away from carbon fiber right now, does that mean their cars will no longer be supercars?)
How can they be "super" without being, um, super? The VERY few super cars of any particular day have a certain tech (and price) level. In ~2005 that was lots of carbon fiber, V10 or V12 engine, space frame chassis, and DSG tranny. If said car didn't have at least some of these things, in addition to huge performance and huge price tag, by definition it wasn't a super car of the time. In 2005, only the Carerra GT, 599GTB, Enzo, Murciélago and some of the boutique novelties (Maserati MC12, McLaren SLR, etc.) were super cars. Some argument can be made for the Gallardo and F430 but that's a tough one for that would almost qualify the Z06 and Viper as super cars too (which they decidedly are NOT).
This is a stupid argument over semantics.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 15, 2013, 10:53:16 AM
This is a stupid argument over semantics.
Because you and SVT666 lost ;)?
Lost what? I wasn't aware I had even picked sides. I just questioned your definition of a super car and why it has to have certain things, since we already knew SVT's definition.
Either way, putting cars into categories is something losers with no life do. Ford GT is a cool car, Ferrari F40 is a cool car, etc. No need to go all "Sports car vs. GT" on this.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 15, 2013, 10:55:09 AM
Because you and SVT666 lost ;)?
You are a fool and you prove it every time you post in this thread.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 15, 2013, 11:00:47 AM
Lost what? I wasn't aware I had even picked sides. I just questioned your definition of a super car and why it has to have certain things, since we already knew SVT's definition.
Either way, putting cars into categories is something losers with no life do. Ford GT is a cool car, Ferrari F40 is a cool car, etc. No need to go all "Sports car vs. GT" on this.
At least sports car vs. GT has a real definition. Supercar isn't really strictly defined by anyone, accepted or not. As a forum, we tried defining it years ago, and as I recall, by our definition, it would indeed be a supercar.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 15, 2013, 10:49:23 AM
How can they be "super" without being, um, super? The VERY few super cars of any particular day have a certain tech (and price) level. In ~2005 that was lots of carbon fiber, V10 or V12 engine, space frame chassis, and DSG tranny. If said car didn't have at least some of these things, in addition to huge performance and huge price tag, by definition it wasn't a super car of the time. In 2005, only the Carerra GT, 599GTB, Enzo, Murciélago and some of the boutique novelties (Maserati MC12, McLaren SLR, etc.) were super cars. Some argument can be made for the Gallardo and F430 but that's a tough one for that would almost qualify the Z06 and Viper as super cars too (which they decidedly are NOT).
Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox?
Quote from: Raza on August 15, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox?
Which list?
Quote from: Raza on August 15, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Hmm...can you name for me the cars in that list that had a dual clutch gearbox?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 15, 2013, 04:24:57 PM
Which list?
The answer is none.
[/IwinSPIN]
Uh oh
(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x253/calfan5/supercar_zps7010b880.png)
Ohshitson
Fuck me. I have hated this thing since it debuted, but damn...that angle, colour, and no roof have converted me.
Quote from: Raza on August 18, 2013, 03:14:28 PM
Your list of supercars.....
559GTB, Enzo and MC12.
What's a 559GTB?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2013, 08:43:58 PM
559GTB, Enzo and MC12.
Think again. All those were single automatic clutch transmissions--"F1" style automatics, not DCTs. Ferrari didn't have a DCT until 2008, with the California. No car you listed had a dual clutch transmission.
Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 09:34:56 AM
Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.
Werent you just saying the Ford GT isn't a supercar because of its price etc etc
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 09:34:56 AM
Well, if I do have it wrong, SMG vs. DSG in 2005 isn't too material IMO - SMG in 2005 was still very exotic and one of the principal, though not only or necessary, trait of the super cars of that time. Ford GT didn't have one, but that alone doesn't discount it from being a super car.
If? :nutty:
I mean, most of your criteria are totally arbitrary--saying it has to be a V10 or V12 would discount a lot of cars traditionally viewed as supercars, like the lower end mid-engine Ferraris. Now, I don't consider them supercars, but for other reasons. Cylinder count is a stupid criteria; power and performance are far more important to the title than how they get there. SMGs might have been "exotic", but the far superior DSG made it to market in 2003 on the Audi TT. When the Ford GT came out, it retailed at $150,000; not much off an entry level Ferrari. As it was well within that performance category, well above average car price (even above luxury car price), and the top of the line automobile of its maker, it's clear that it's a supercar.
Your attempts to define a supercar in a way that excludes the GT falls flat when the only car with one of your criteria for the time period is a lowly Golf-based 2+2.
Watch the strawman - I said circa 2005, the MY intro of the Ford GT. Buy yeah, show me a car circa 2005 that doesn't have a V10 or V12 and is without pretty much all the significant super car factors I listed and I'll show you a car that isn't a super car. Ford GT just isn't there.
A number of other cars have super car power and performance - Corvette ZR1, GTR, 911T - but will never be super cars.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 19, 2013, 09:37:34 AM
Werent you just saying the Ford GT isn't a supercar because of its price etc etc
Yes.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
Watch the strawman - I said circa 2005, the MY intro of the Ford GT. Buy yeah, show me a car circa 2005 that doesn't have a V10 or V12 and is without pretty much all the significant super car factors I listed and I'll show you a car that isn't a super car. Ford GT just isn't there.
A number of other cars have super car power and performance - Corvette ZR1, GTR, 911T - but will never be super cars.
The ZR1 is based on a lower model, so is the 911 Turbo, which is why they're not supercars. GT-R is questionable.
Quote from: Raza on August 19, 2013, 01:15:31 PM
The ZR1 is based on a lower model, so is the 911 Turbo, which is why they're not supercars. GT-R is questionable.
GTR ain't nowhere near a super car. I also forget the Audi R8 too - not a super car though it's closer than the Ford GT.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
GTR ain't nowhere near a super car. I also forget the Audi R8 too - not a super car though it's closer than the Ford GT.
I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.
But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't? Or is it completely based on your biases?
Quote from: Raza on August 19, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.
But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't? Or is it completely based on your biases?
DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).
Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2013, 02:38:56 PM
DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).
And yet still no from Cougs.
I don't even know why I'm bothering. I don't really care about his definition of a supercar. I just wanted to point out that he said DSG and none of the cars he mentioned had a DSG.
How about the Koenigsegg CCR? <10 cylinders, no SMG/DSG. Was capable of 200+ mph (was the 4th fastest "production" car in the world when it came out).
You also have the Saleen S7. Again, no DSG/SMG and <10 cylinders (and a poop-rod motor to boot). Or the SSC Ultimate Aero. Or anything Noble was making in the mid-2000s (didn't even have 8 cylinders). There were a number of "supercars" in the mid '00s that didn't have automated gearboxes or 10+ cylinder engines.
The Ford GT was on a bespoke platform, limited production numbers, was mid-engined, cost well into the 6 figures, ran 0-60 and 1/4 mile times up there with the fastest cars of the day, and had a top speed of well over 200 mph. In 2004, that was a supercar. And while it didn't use super exotic composites extensively (did have some carbon fiber here and there), it did utilize friction stir welding ($$$$) in constructing the center tunnel and a novel super-plastic forming method for fabricating some of the frame members. All of the body panels were aluminum, which is pretty uncommon and only found in higher end vehicles.
Quote from: Raza on August 19, 2013, 02:43:22 PM
I don't even know why I'm bothering.
Now you know why I stopped arguing with him. You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind. Kind of like you and sports cars.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 19, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Now you know why I stopped arguing with him. You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind. Kind of like you and sports cars.
My definition isn't arbitrary and I didn't make it up. If anything, my definition of a sports car is the furthest thing from arbitrary. It's based on another definition and it sets unambiguous guidelines for what is and what is not.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 19, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Now you know why I stopped arguing with him. You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind. Kind of like you and sports cars.
It's apparent that Cougs is a Brawndo drinker. How else could he win at opinions? I'll bet he wins at exercise and jumping, too.
Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2013, 03:26:52 PM
It's apparent that Cougs is a Brawndo drinker. How else could he win at opinions? I'll bet he wins at exercise and jumping, too.
It's got what plants crave.
Quote from: Raza on August 19, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
I tend to agree that the GT-R doesn't count.
But can you explain to me what the R8 has that makes it closer to a supercar that the GT doesn't? Or is it completely based on your biases?
This:
Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2013, 02:38:56 PM
DSG, V10 engine, carbon fiber body panels (albeit decorative).
However, the rather mundane R8 4.2 exists, knocking it out of contention.
Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2013, 03:07:56 PM
How about the Koenigsegg CCR? <10 cylinders, no SMG/DSG. Was capable of 200+ mph (was the 4th fastest "production" car in the world when it came out).
You also have the Saleen S7. Again, no DSG/SMG and <10 cylinders (and a poop-rod motor to boot). Or the SSC Ultimate Aero. Or anything Noble was making in the mid-2000s (didn't even have 8 cylinders). There were a number of "supercars" in the mid '00s that didn't have automated gearboxes or 10+ cylinder engines.
The Ford GT was on a bespoke platform, limited production numbers, was mid-engined, cost well into the 6 figures, ran 0-60 and 1/4 mile times up there with the fastest cars of the day, and had a top speed of well over 200 mph. In 2004, that was a supercar. And while it didn't use super exotic composites extensively (did have some carbon fiber here and there), it did utilize friction stir welding ($$$$) in constructing the center tunnel and a novel super-plastic forming method for fabricating some of the frame members. All of the body panels were aluminum, which is pretty uncommon and only found in higher end vehicles.
With so few of the CCR built (like a dozen) IMO it doesn't qualify for consideration (it's a kit car). The S7 has the other super car attributes - exotic materials, big price tag, exotic styling/design.
Again, if you qualify the Ford GT you also qualify the Z06, since it was a bit better performer and had a bit more extensive use of exotic materials.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 03:56:08 PM
With so few of the CCR built (like a dozen) IMO it doesn't qualify for consideration (it's a kit car). The S7 has the other super car attributes - exotic materials, big price tag, exotic styling/design.
Again, if you qualify the Ford GT you also qualify the Z06, since it was a bit better performer and had a bit more extensive use of exotic materials.
Z06 was/is a hi-po version of a more affordable ("normal") performance car, and was itself reasonably affordable (well under $100K). There was no affordable version of the GT. Also, the C5 Z06 (which is what was out when the GT came to market) wasn't even close to the GT in performance.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 19, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Now you know why I stopped arguing with him. You could slap him right in the face with a cat, but if he decides it doesn't meet his arbitrary definition of what a cat is then it's not a cat and you can't change his mind. Kind of like you and sports cars.
You stopped "arguing" because you lost your most precious "argument" of 'em all, and more than four years on you still haven't fully recovered:
Camaro July 2013 Deliveries (sales): 7,969
Mustang July 2013 Delivery (sales): 5,768
Challenger July 2013 Delivery (sales): 4,271
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 04:04:52 PM
You stopped "arguing" because you lost your most precious "argument" of 'em all, and more than four years on you still haven't fully recovered:
Camaro July 2013 Deliveries (sales): 7,969
Mustang July 2013 Delivery (sales): 5,768
Challenger July 2013 Delivery (sales): 4,271
:rolleyes: I admitted I was wrong on that like 2 fucking years ago. Your definition of a supercar is whatever it takes to eliminate a car from a manufacturer you hate. Pure and simple.
Oh and until the end of July Mustang was outselling Camaro this year and the Camaro only leads the Mustang in sales by 1400 units so things have leveled off and Camaro sales are down 21% so far this year.
Quote from: Raza on August 19, 2013, 03:22:49 PM
My definition isn't arbitrary and I didn't make it up. If anything, my definition of a sports car is the furthest thing from arbitrary. It's based on another definition and it sets unambiguous guidelines for what is and what is not.
First of all it was more tongue in cheek than anything, but second of all there isn't a single motorsports governing body on the planet that classifies sports cars as convertibles or roadsters. The FIA defines it as open top or fixed roof, but I'm not going to argue about it since these iron clad definitions that make a Corvette convertible a sports car but a Corvette coupe a GT are fucking ridiculous.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 19, 2013, 04:14:53 PM
:rolleyes: I admitted I was wrong on that like 2 fucking years ago. Your definition of a supercar is whatever it takes to eliminate a car from a manufacturer you hate. Pure and simple.
Oh and until the end of July Mustang was outselling Camaro this year and the Camaro only leads the Mustang in sales by 1400 units so things have leveled off and Camaro sales are down 21% so far this year.
Like I said, still not recovered ;).
It's ridiculous to assert I "hate" Ford. The R8 V10 is more super car than the Ford GT in every measure - costs more, higher end automaker, more power, better performer, DSG, exotic materials - yet it's not a super car either.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 19, 2013, 04:30:28 PM
Like I said, still not recovered ;).
It's ridiculous to assert I "hate" Ford. The R8 V10 is more super car than the Ford GT in every measure - costs more, higher end automaker, more power, better performer, DSG, exotic materials - yet it's not a super car either.
When adjusted for inflation, the R8 V10 actually starts at a lower price than the GT did. And they make the same horsepower.
Funny, after a year or so, I just saw a Ford GT today .... no matter what Cougs says, that car is a super car .... the R8 not really.
Quote from: MX793 on August 19, 2013, 04:39:36 PM
When adjusted for inflation, the R8 V10 actually starts at a lower price than the GT did. And they make the same horsepower.
Looking at their configuration the I'm getting ~$190k which is more than the intro 2005 $139,995 price of the Ford GT.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 21, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Looking at their configuration the I'm getting ~$190k which is more than the intro 2005 $139,995 price of the Ford GT.
The Ford GT came out as a 2004 model year car (I'm looking at the January 2004 issue of C&D in which they pitted it against the Ferrari 360 and 911 GT3) and was priced at $150,000. The Audi R8 V10 starts at $151,200. I'm guessing you're looking at a V10 Plus model (with some options), which starts at $170,545.
EDIT: Looking at the August '05 Comparo, the GT had a starting price of $143,345. Still, accounting for inflation, that is more than $151K today.
Ironically, last night I watched the "worlds worst car" episode of Top Gear where James May nominated the Ford GT for worst car ever
Quote from: r0tor on August 21, 2013, 06:11:20 PM
Ironically, last night I watched the "worlds worst car" episode of Top Gear where James May nominated the Ford GT for worst car ever
The problem with his nomination is that he didn't have a single good reason for the nomination except for the comedic scenes of Clarkson tied to a tree.
His main point was that it was a cheap knockoff of an icon... and therefore terrible. He absolutely has a point.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 22, 2013, 10:25:00 AM
The problem with his nomination is that he didn't have a single good reason for the nomination except for the comedic scenes of Clarkson tied to a tree.
Clarkson made Ford buy his GT back after about a month of ownership because it was such a POS...
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 04:03:07 PM
Clarkson made Ford buy his GT back after about a month of ownership because it was such a POS...
Because of the aftermarket alarm, I believe.
Quote from: CJ on August 22, 2013, 04:09:05 PM
Because of the aftermarket alarm, I believe.
Car companies just don't buy back cars because someone asks let alone because of a trippy aftermarket alarm, so there is likely a whole pile of something that when on behind the scenes, probably not a lot to do with the alarm.
Quote from: r0tor on August 22, 2013, 03:37:38 PM
His main point was that it was a cheap knockoff of an icon... and therefore terrible. He absolutely has a point.
Not really. The Ford GT wasn't "cheap." Sure it was retro but it was very well executed (and much better looking than the original).
Quote from: r0tor on August 22, 2013, 03:37:38 PM
His main point was that it was a cheap knockoff of an icon... and therefore terrible. He absolutely has a point.
That's the point he was trying to make but he's full of shit. The GT was a brilliant car that had the styling of the original. I guess the 2005 Mustang is a cheap knockoff of an icon too?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 04:03:07 PM
Clarkson made Ford buy his GT back after about a month of ownership because it was such a POS...
Quote from: CJ on August 22, 2013, 04:09:05 PM
Because of the aftermarket alarm, I believe.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 04:17:43 PM
Car companies just don't buy back cars because someone asks let alone because of a trippy aftermarket alarm, so there is likely a whole pile of something that when on behind the scenes, probably not a lot to do with the alarm.
Actually it had everything to do with the alarm but it was a stock alarm and not afternarket. The alarm kept going off at random times and then he would get a phone call in the middle of the night and sometimes while he was driving from Ford telling him his car had been stolen. The car spent a lot of time in the shop for the issue and Ford couldn't rectify the situation. Clarkson demanded they buy the car back and they did. Likely to avoid worse press than Clarkson was already giving them. Despite all that, Clarkson still says it's one of the best cars he has ever driven and owned.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 04:03:07 PM
Clarkson made Ford buy his GT back after about a month of ownership because it was such a POS...
Then he bought it back again.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 22, 2013, 04:30:50 PM
That's the point he was trying to make but he's full of shit. The GT was a brilliant car that had the styling of the original. I guess the 2005 Mustang is a cheap knockoff of an icon too?
Yup
That's bullshit.
Not sure what's up with that - the retro pony cars are great cars and successful in the marketplace.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 08:09:27 PM
Not sure what's up with that - the retro pony cars are great cars and successful in the marketplace.
GT is in a very different market... people spending 150K on a car want the image of wealth, not fake nostalgia
Limited edition halo car that runs 200 mph? I think it has the cache to sport the label "supercar."
Quote from: Tave on August 23, 2013, 06:51:07 AM
Limited edition halo car that runs 200 mph? I think it has the cache to sport the label "supercar."
212. Apparently electronically limited, according to Wikipedia.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 22, 2013, 08:09:27 PM
Not sure what's up with that - the retro pony cars are great cars and successful in the marketplace.
The names mustang and camaro carry enough cache that the designers could make it a turd on wheels and people would still preorder them.
Retro copies are just designers being lazy.
:rolleyes:
I see the retro pony car phase as a nice reboot for the cars, since they were getting off track a little bit.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 23, 2013, 02:30:00 AM
GT is in a very different market... people spending 150K on a car want the image of wealth, not fake nostalgia
You don't think the Ford GT projects an image of wealth? Are you fucking high?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 23, 2013, 02:30:00 AM
GT is in a very different market... people spending 150K on a car want the image of wealth, not fake nostalgia
Didn't seem like Ford had a problem selling them and suffice it to say they're doing even better used (quick Googling shows an average asking price of ~$225k).
Quote from: r0tor on August 23, 2013, 07:31:35 AM
The names mustang and camaro carry enough cache that the designers could make it a turd on wheels and people would still preorder them.
Retro copies are just designers being lazy.
Betcha it was harder politically and technically to get the current Camaro to market than it was a non-retro version.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 23, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
You don't think the Ford GT projects an image of wealth? Are you fucking high?
Its like a fancy Corvette
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 23, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
Its like a fancy Corvette
You're either trolling or you're an idiot.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 23, 2013, 06:43:14 PM
You're either trolling or you're an idiot.
Either way, :golfclap:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 23, 2013, 12:10:09 PM
Betcha it was harder politically and technically to get the current Camaro to market than it was a non-retro version.
Yes, with ford already selling a bunch of retro mustangs - I am sure that it was a tougher decision to sell a retro camaro then it would have been a clean slate one.