Is it just me? I'm getting bored with Supercars now. Everybody and their dog makes a car that can hit 60 mph in under 4 seconds and have a top speed of near or more then 200 mph. It used to be that only a select few cars were at the top of the heap. Now it seems like everything from a $50,000 Corvette to a $1.5 Million Bugatti can do it. There just doesn't seem to be anything built these days that makes your jaw drop performance-wise because there are 20 other cars that can do the exact same thing.
Personally, I'm finding cars that perform or offer levels of refinement that far exceed their price range to be far more exciting these days. Cars that are actually affordable like the Mustang, Genesis Coupe, Euro Focus RS, new Sonata, Toyota FT-86, WRX, etc.
I agree completely. There are boutique manufacturers that completely light my fancy, though, because of outrageous style (Spyker), pedigree and performance (Morgan), or something novel (Tesla). I'll still go crazy when I see something really cool, but I've seen something like 7 or 8 Gallardos recently, 3 or 4 GT-Rs, and a host of other cars. So a rich man can buy a fast car -- I could, too, if I had the money.
But it doesn't always mean it's something really kickass.
Don't get me wrong, if I won the lottery tonight, I would placing orders for an Aston Martin DBS, Ferrari 599 or California, and a Lamborghini LP670-4.
But, I just have a hard time getting excited about a new supercar that can do 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, a top speed of 205 mph, and costs $350,000. I mean, you can't even use all that power on public roads and it costs as much as a house. They used to be far and few between that could do that and they lit my fire because they were so rare. Like the Lambo Diablo. I remember when that came out. That is the car that actualy got me to fall in love with cars. I liked cars before the Diablo, but that car made me fall in love with cars. Now, a Mustang is faster then the 1st gen Viper.
They also made less than 2,500 Diablos over 12 years. They make more Gallardos than that in one year.
I've always been like this. I mean I love some moder super cars and ones from the past. But I've never got into them as much as the cars that I could actually own. I've got two list of "favorite cars." One is super cars that I could only see at car shows and the other, more important one is a list of cars I can buy.
One more thing, driving one of these on the road must be hell. My "slow" RX-8 will be going speeds that would lose my drivers license or put me in jail in no time. I can't get the back end out on a curve unless I'm going way too fast for public roads. What in the world would it be like driving a super car like this? You'd only be able to drive it the way you wanted at a track or take your chances. That's why I like cars like the MX-5. Not much power but you can have a blast going 45-50 mph and feel like you're doing more. You can actually use the car in the real world.
That said I'd still love an F-40, F-355 or many other cars.
I think the problem is that none of the new "super" cars are all that super in the way they used to be. They are all very, very fast, but they seem like a normal car. It used to be that all supercars were absolutely insane, something different. Now half of them have roots from a mainstream car.
That, and all the nanny driver's aids. My old Karmann Ghia was a fun car, because it was very entertaining to drive at 60 mph. To get the same thrills, I'd have to drive 120 mph+ in a modern car. This is why a $12,995 Factory Five kit is more appealing to me than any car I'd have to spend 6 figures on.
Supercars are cool, but I'm far more interested in vehicles I might actually have a chance to own or drive. And even some of those are starting to lose appeal. I'm actually turned off by the new 400 hp Mustang GT and Camaro SS. They're simply too fast to ever use that kind of power on public roads. I actually like cars you can flog while staying below "spend the night in jail" speeds. I've got a vehicle with that level of performance and I've only ever really cracked into it once. I got to enjoy a whole 4 seconds of "holy sh!t" acceleration before I was into super-legal speeds. Even when not really giving it the spurs, you can get up to "arrest me" speeds in a hurry. When passing a slower moving car, I can go from 50 mph to 80+ by the time I've cleared the nose of the car without downshifting out of top gear. Though I'll admit it's nice to have that kind of thrust when passing zones are few and short and you're stuck behind a semi.
I just want something that looks good, sounds good, can hit 60 in under 7 seconds and is fun in the corners even at legal speeds. If Mazda made an RX-8 with folding rear seats and a more fuel efficient engine, I'd be all over it. If the V6 Mustang isn't what I hope it'll be, I may end up going the RX route anyway (assuming they bring back the big incentives) and keeping my car as a beater/practical vehicle.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 12, 2010, 03:56:45 PM
I've always been like this. I mean I love some moder super cars and ones from the past. But I've never got into them as much as the cars that I could actually own. I've got two list of "favorite cars." One is super cars that I could only see at car shows and the other, more important one is a list of cars I can buy.
One more thing, driving one of these on the road must be hell. My "slow" RX-8 will be going speeds that would lose my drivers license or put me in jail in no time. I can't get the back end out on a curve unless I'm going way too fast for public roads. What in the world would it be like driving a super car like this? You'd only be able to drive it the way you wanted at a track or take your chances. That's why I like cars like the MX-5. Not much power but you can have a blast going 45-50 mph and feel like you're doing more. You can actually use the car in the real world.
That said I'd still love an F-40, F-355 or many other cars.
As much fun as it was to rent that 'Vette this past spring, I only really got to see what it could do a few times in the middle of nowhere deserts and mountains. In areas of civilization, it was an absolute chore to keep it at the speed limit. It is just a horrible tragedy to adhere to such mundane traffic laws in a super(ish) car! Hence the Swift. :lol:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 12, 2010, 08:48:14 PM
As much fun as it was to rent that 'Vette this past spring, I only really got to see what it could do a few times in the middle of nowhere deserts and mountains. In areas of civilization, it was an absolute chore to keep it at the speed limit. It is just a horrible tragedy to adhere to such mundane traffic laws in a super(ish) car! Hence the Swift. :lol:
That automatic Vette could eat a Diablo--the first legit 200+ mph supercar--for lunch. That was only two decades ago that the Lambo was the king.
Swift @ 60 = Diablo @ 200.
Quote from: Rockraven on May 12, 2010, 09:06:43 PM
Swift @ 60 = Diablo @ 200.
Then what does Swift @ 90 = ? Because I've done it, and I shit my pants.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 12, 2010, 09:02:54 PM
That automatic Vette could eat a Diablo--the first legit 200+ mph supercar--for lunch. That was only two decades ago that the Lambo was the king.
A stock 2011 Mustang GT could keep up to the Diablo now. It says a lot about where affordable performance cars are these days.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 12, 2010, 09:07:15 PM
Then what does Swift @ 90 = ? Because I've done it, and I shit my pants.
(http://rubystuff.org/ludicrous/plaid.jpg)
Quote from: Rockraven on May 12, 2010, 09:12:03 PM
(http://rubystuff.org/ludicrous/plaid.jpg)
:lol: :lol:
I agree, though I have a soft spot for the GT3 and whatever the midengine Ferrari is
I mean a Mustang GT is cool, GREAT 40K car, but it will never match the shriek, precision and sense of urgency of a supercar or even a high end sports car. It's like the GT-R vs a 911 C4S... yea the Porsche costs more and doesn't hold a candle to the GT-R on the track, but for my money I'm going for the better looking, better sounding, more opulent Porsche. I think we've come to a time where supercar performance is standard, and the choice is between price or aesthetics and feel. I would rather pay a little more and get some more refinement than just enter in at the bottom strictly to get the most performance for the $$$.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 12, 2010, 09:09:10 PM
A stock 2011 Mustang GT could keep up to the Diablo now.
:wtf:
Quote from: the Teuton on May 12, 2010, 09:02:54 PM
That automatic Vette could eat a Diablo--the first legit 200+ mph supercar--for lunch.
:wtf:
i admire attainable or slightly attainable performance cars these days...
Quote from: Tave on May 13, 2010, 05:41:41 AM
:wtf:
What do you mean WTF? It could. The original Diablo was only marginally faster to 60 mph, much slower in the slalom, and would break down every 3 or 4 miles.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 13, 2010, 03:07:11 PM
What do you mean WTF? It could. The original Diablo was only marginally faster to 60 mph, much slower in the slalom, and would break down every 3 or 4 miles.
The Diablo did 60 in first gear, and over 200 in fifth. The Swift can do the slalom faster than a Diablo.
Swift wins. :huh:
This is why I like old cars.
I floor my car all the time. Mind you, I have a manual so if I'm in a highish gear for my speed and floor it, it takes some time, but it gets up to speed pretty quickly. I can see having more than 300 HP would almost put a damper since it would be too fast.
I understand the sentiment. It's hard to get excited about things you'll likely never have the chance to experience. But I don't feel the same way. Sure, the threshold for excitement is higher with these cars, and as they become more technologically advanced and automated, I lose interest. The cars that are the most perfect are the hardest to love. I'm entirely overcome with ennui when thinking about the Ferrari 458 (OMG! An ugly Ferrari with an automatic and holes in the front of the car!), but love the idea of these boutique supercars that come out of nowhere with high hopes. Most fail, but some, like Pagani, manage to come through with all the passion and soul that led someone to spend his life designing cars with no practical use intact. The one upside to a car like the 458 is that it makes something like the GT-R look more attractive. It makes you think...the Ferrari is uglier, less practical, only as technologically advanced, and costs a shitload more and is only maybe a hair faster. I'd honestly rather have the GT-R than the 458.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1325530#msg1325530 date=1273841171
I understand the sentiment. It's hard to get excited about things you'll likely never have the chance to experience. But I don't feel the same way. Sure, the threshold for excitement is higher with these cars, and as they become more technologically advanced and automated, I lose interest. The cars that are the most perfect are the hardest to love. I'm entirely overcome with ennui when thinking about the Ferrari 458 (OMG! An ugly Ferrari with an automatic and holes in the front of the car!), but love the idea of these boutique supercars that come out of nowhere with high hopes. Most fail, but some, like Pagani, manage to come through with all the passion and soul that led someone to spend his life designing cars with no practical use intact. The one upside to a car like the 458 is that it makes something like the GT-R look more attractive. It makes you think...the Ferrari is uglier, less practical, only as technologically advanced, and costs a shitload more and is only maybe a hair faster. I'd honestly rather have the GT-R than the 458.
When you think about it, the Zonda F is akin to a modern day Diablo, or even Countach...In fact, it's everything a supercar should be - Fast, light but above all, balls to the walls insane.
(http://www.carspotting.com/userfiles/281/Pagani-Zonda-F-Roadster_3275.JPG)
C'mon - didn't you guys here the Mustang can cure cancer!
Unbelievable, the Diablo would rape a Mustang GT of any year; '11 or otherwise.
:facepalm:
Some supercars can still impress through exclusivity. :ohyeah:
If you want to be different, drive this. :lol:
The Mercedes 35 HP Super Sports Car
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/mercedes-benz/motorsports/mercedes-benz-history-the-mercedes-35-hp/
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1325530#msg1325530 date=1273841171
I understand the sentiment. It's hard to get excited about things you'll likely never have the chance to experience. But I don't feel the same way. Sure, the threshold for excitement is higher with these cars, and as they become more technologically advanced and automated, I lose interest. The cars that are the most perfect are the hardest to love. I'm entirely overcome with ennui when thinking about the Ferrari 458 (OMG! An ugly Ferrari with an automatic and holes in the front of the car!), but love the idea of these boutique supercars that come out of nowhere with high hopes. Most fail, but some, like Pagani, manage to come through with all the passion and soul that led someone to spend his life designing cars with no practical use intact. The one upside to a car like the 458 is that it makes something like the GT-R look more attractive. It makes you think...the Ferrari is uglier, less practical, only as technologically advanced, and costs a shitload more and is only maybe a hair faster. I'd honestly rather have the GT-R than the 458.
I like + understand you less with each post
GT-R is essentially the 458 with less steering feel, uglier looks + sounds, higher weight and worse performance. 458 is the better car even at 3x the price. GT-R is a really fast Altima SE
Quote from: Submariner on May 14, 2010, 08:00:07 AM
When you think about it, the Zonda F is akin to a modern day Diablo, or even Countach...In fact, it's everything a supercar should be - Fast, light but above all, balls to the walls insane.
(http://www.carspotting.com/userfiles/281/Pagani-Zonda-F-Roadster_3275.JPG)
I agree. And it's one of the only new supercars that I love. :wub:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 14, 2010, 12:10:00 PM
I like + understand you less with each post
GT-R is essentially the 458 with less steering feel, uglier looks + sounds, higher weight and worse performance. 458 is the better car even at 3x the price. GT-R is a really fast Altima SE
Maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but I expect more from Ferrari.
Quote from: Raza on May 14, 2010, 11:48:29 PM
Maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but I expect more from Ferrari.
The 458 (According to Ferrari) is faster around a track than an Enzo...that's pretty damn good.
The 458 isn't as "cool" (as subjective as that may be) to me as the 430. The Gated shifter, the simplistic interior, none of the silly looking air intakes, etc. I think it looks better, and from what I have heard (which as of now is unreliable because of how new it is) is more involving. That being said, the 458 from a technological standpoint is one hell of a car.
My dad's friend has an F430 - 6 speed. He is waiting for his 458 to show up to his front door. I'll reserve judgment on it's looks until I see it in the flesh.
Quote from: Raza on May 14, 2010, 11:48:29 PM
Maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but I expect more from Ferrari.
458 performance > Enzo performance
458 price (x3.5) < Enzo price
Granted with that kind of cold hard logic the GT-R could be rationalized, but at the end of the day the 458 is still a Ferrari... and not a weird one like the 408 or F50; it's a true engineering achievement that still screams with passion. I don't know what more you want lol.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 12, 2010, 09:02:54 PM
That automatic Vette could eat a Diablo--the first legit 200+ mph supercar--for lunch. That was only two decades ago that the Lambo was the king.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 12, 2010, 09:09:10 PM
A stock 2011 Mustang GT could keep up to the Diablo now. It says a lot about where affordable performance cars are these days.
Jacob might have a case, but I doubt it. And Craig, I think you might be on crack.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car_Lamborghini_Diablo_SV_1997.html
A diablo still is in pretty serious company.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2010, 10:06:27 AM
458 performance > Enzo performance
458 price (x3.5) < Enzo price
Granted with that kind of cold hard logic the GT-R could be rationalized, but at the end of the day the 458 is still a Ferrari... and not a weird one like the 408 or F50; it's a true engineering achievement that still screams with passion. I don't know what more you want lol.
I'd argue that the F50 was one of the most technically significant Ferrari yet.
This thread has changed what i think of a supercar. IMO the level of supercar has been taken up to the level of pagoni and veyron
Quote from: Submariner on May 14, 2010, 08:00:07 AM
(http://www.carspotting.com/userfiles/281/Pagani-Zonda-F-Roadster_3275.JPG)
Putting on my flame suit........ I think these things are ugly. Cool cars, but ugly.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 15, 2010, 10:53:09 AM
Putting on my flame suit........ I think these things are ugly. Cool cars, but ugly.
It's more of a fighter jet type of design. Not beautiful by itself, but when you see what it can do it's just kickass.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 15, 2010, 10:54:14 AM
It's more of a fighter jet type of design. Not beautiful by itself, but when you see what it can do it's just kickass.
I know it kicks ass. But some fighter jets look bad ass while other ones that are just as good are ugly too.
Quote from: SVT_Power on May 15, 2010, 10:37:35 AM
Jacob might have a case, but I doubt it. And Craig, I think you might be on crack.
http://www.fastestlaps.com/car_Lamborghini_Diablo_SV_1997.html
A diablo still is in pretty serious company.
The Mustang GT is just 2/10ths behind the Diablo to 60 mph.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 15, 2010, 10:53:09 AM
Putting on my flame suit........ I think these things are ugly. Cool cars, but ugly.
I'm with you. I've never seent he appeal of the Zonda. As a car it's amazing. Styling wise it's ugly.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2010, 11:32:46 PM
The Mustang GT is just 2/10ths behind the Diablo to 60 mph.
I'll place money on my dads S600 beating a GT to 60, but that doesn't mean it's going to win on a track...
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2010, 11:32:46 PM
The Mustang GT is just 2/10ths behind the Diablo to 60 mph.
We all know that is only one of many measurements of a car's speed. Is the Mustang anywhere on the fastest lap time list for any of those tracks?
Quote from: Submariner on May 15, 2010, 11:35:10 PM
I'll place money on my dads S600 beating a GT to 60, but that doesn't mean it's going to win on a track...
I didn't know I said it would beat a Diablo anywhere, let alone a track. All I said was that a Mustang GT could keep up with a Diablo. All I meant was that it wouldn't be embarrassed in a straight line...and it wouldn't. It would get beat for sure, but not totally blown out of the water like the last model would have been.
Besides, the Diablo requires a ride-along mechanic. :evildude:
Quote from: Submariner on May 15, 2010, 12:06:11 AM
The 458 (According to Ferrari) is faster around a track than an Enzo...that's pretty damn good.
The 458 isn't as "cool" (as subjective as that may be) to me as the 430. The Gated shifter, the simplistic interior, none of the silly looking air intakes, etc. I think it looks better, and from what I have heard (which as of now is unreliable because of how new it is) is more involving. That being said, the 458 from a technological standpoint is one hell of a car.
My dad's friend has an F430 - 6 speed. He is waiting for his 458 to show up to his front door. I'll reserve judgment on it's looks until I see it in the flesh.
The don't make an F430 6 speed...
EDIT:
OMFG NVM. :wub:
Quote from: Submariner on May 15, 2010, 11:35:10 PM
I'll place money on my dads S600 beating a GT to 60, but that doesn't mean it's going to win on a track...
Really?
2011 Mustang GT = 4.3 seconds
2010 M-B S600 = 4.5 Seconds
Look, I never said it would beat a Diablo anywhere, and I certainly never said it would beat a Diablo on a track.
Godamn that Pagani is awesome! I used to find it ugly, but after seeing some video reviews I completely changed my mind. Definitely my favorite. If I win the lottery all of you are welcome to ride shotgun in the one I special order.
Don't know why, maybe it's the interior and engine sound. Gorgeous.
You should probably actually say what you mean, SVT. ;)
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 14, 2010, 01:26:24 PM
I agree. And it's one of the only new supercars that I love. :wub:
I thought they were now obsolete.
Eh, I don't know about the 500+ Hp those supercars have, but 400 hp is plently usable to me on a daily basis.
I remember someone on the Z06 forums saying that driving a very fast car is like being a great white shark swimming in a school of minnows. There is a confidence knowing that you can always make a pass, that acceleration will never be a concern, and you never worry about some asshole camping in the left lane and speeding up to block people off when they try to go around. Just the other day there was some guy doing like 50 in a 55 in the left lane with a bunch of cars behind. Everytime someone moved over to the right for a pass the guy would speed up just enough so they couldn't make the pass before the next car. I have no idea why people do this, I think it happens too often to be them just purposely being dicks. Usually these people are in minivans, and my theory is that they are talking to their kids or wife, and when they notice a car passing them, they realize they are going too slow, speed up a bit to block the pass, and then go back to being slow. Anyway as soon as I saw my chance, I dropped to 3rd, got a run on the guy, pulled the pass with bus lengths to spare, all while making enough noise that it was basically like honking the horn while passing them so they know I'm coming. I'm sure the guy tried to speed up as usual, and the Z06 blew past like he was going backwards. Let me tell you, that is a hugely satisfying feeling.
Maybe I'm just a secretly road rage prone driver, but it seems like there are many small moments everyday when people feel the need to get in front of you. People just don't like getting passed in general, myself included. Maybe I'm petty about this, but I'll admit that whenever I am stopped at a light, and the road merges ahead, or everyone trying to get into one lane for an on ramp, I just get the urge to beat the guy next to me. I know he's got the urge too because whenever I'm in the pathfinder, they pretty much go for it hard and there is nothing I can do (0-60 in 11 seconds). I relish the same situation when I'm in the Z06. It's not even about having to use all 400hp in that case. I just go fast enough to comfortably be ahead (usually I just accelerate to speed limit in a pretty brisk pace). It's all about knowing that an additional 300 hp is on reserve should you need it.
Plus another place where 400hp comes in handy is merging onto route 15 (merrit parkway in CT), granted this is a rather particular example. I have no idea who designed this road, but it's a road where everyone goes 75-85 and you enter from stop signs, you have like 10 feet from the stop sign to entry point of the highway. So pretty much every entry is a full 0-70 standing start. In the pathfinder I'm literally waiting at that stop sign forever for the mile long gap I need, and people behind get rather frustrated. In the Z06 it's a breeze. Wait for a 8-10 second gap and floor it. People automatically move over to the left lane, because they think you will be in the way, of course they never catch me and move back over to the right as I disappear into the distance.
Actually now that I think about it, most of my examples are just me driving immaturely and irresponsibly in a 400hp car. Man I love it.
:lol: I CAN'T WAIT!!!!
565, I bet a lot of people back off when they see your car because they know they'll lose and don't want to look like a n00b racing their family sedan against your car. :lol:
565 I hear you on the minivan thing. I actually thing a lot of times such idiots aren't doing it on purpose - once they see someone going for a pass on the right they are subconsciously reminded they're going too slow and subconsciously speed up. Doesn't make it any less of a problem on the roadways however.
I would love an automatic low 13 second car. Just point and shoot.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 15, 2010, 11:47:06 PM
Really?
2011 Mustang GT = 4.3 seconds
2010 M-B S600 = 4.5 Seconds
Look, I never said it would beat a Diablo anywhere, and I certainly never said it would beat a Diablo on a track.
I've seen at least two instances of guys running bone stock S600's hitting 60 in 4.2 track verified.
It's a scary fast car.
Quote from: thecarnut on May 15, 2010, 11:46:11 PM
The don't make an F430 6 speed...
EDIT:
OMFG NVM. :wub:
Hahaha...exactly how you should feel. :lol:
I've only seen one though in person (aside from my dads friend)...a red coupe with graphite wheels and what I'm guessing wasn't a stock exhaust. It was louder than any F430 I've heard (including a spyder I saw while on the cape last night) Ooooooo...what a machine. :wub:
:facepalm: at the continued Mustang fanboyism. It's been pretty much proven the first few GTs tested were ringers.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2010, 11:00:08 AM
:facepalm: at the continued Mustang fanboyism. It's been pretty much proven the first few GTs tested were ringers.
I don't know, Cougs. Based on its specs, I'd expect it to churn out some gnarly numbers.
Quote from: 565 on May 16, 2010, 08:22:19 AM
Eh, I don't know about the 500+ Hp those supercars have, but 400 hp is plently usable to me on a daily basis.
I remember someone on the Z06 forums saying that driving a very fast car is like being a great white shark swimming in a school of minnows. There is a confidence knowing that you can always make a pass, that acceleration will never be a concern, and you never worry about some asshole camping in the left lane and speeding up to block people off when they try to go around. Just the other day there was some guy doing like 50 in a 55 in the left lane with a bunch of cars behind. Everytime someone moved over to the right for a pass the guy would speed up just enough so they couldn't make the pass before the next car. I have no idea why people do this, I think it happens too often to be them just purposely being dicks. Usually these people are in minivans, and my theory is that they are talking to their kids or wife, and when they notice a car passing them, they realize they are going too slow, speed up a bit to block the pass, and then go back to being slow. Anyway as soon as I saw my chance, I dropped to 3rd, got a run on the guy, pulled the pass with bus lengths to spare, all while making enough noise that it was basically like honking the horn while passing them so they know I'm coming. I'm sure the guy tried to speed up as usual, and the Z06 blew past like he was going backwards. Let me tell you, that is a hugely satisfying feeling.
Maybe I'm just a secretly road rage prone driver, but it seems like there are many small moments everyday when people feel the need to get in front of you. People just don't like getting passed in general, myself included. Maybe I'm petty about this, but I'll admit that whenever I am stopped at a light, and the road merges ahead, or everyone trying to get into one lane for an on ramp, I just get the urge to beat the guy next to me. I know he's got the urge too because whenever I'm in the pathfinder, they pretty much go for it hard and there is nothing I can do (0-60 in 11 seconds). I relish the same situation when I'm in the Z06. It's not even about having to use all 400hp in that case. I just go fast enough to comfortably be ahead (usually I just accelerate to speed limit in a pretty brisk pace). It's all about knowing that an additional 300 hp is on reserve should you need it.
Plus another place where 400hp comes in handy is merging onto route 15 (merrit parkway in CT), granted this is a rather particular example. I have no idea who designed this road, but it's a road where everyone goes 75-85 and you enter from stop signs, you have like 10 feet from the stop sign to entry point of the highway. So pretty much every entry is a full 0-70 standing start. In the pathfinder I'm literally waiting at that stop sign forever for the mile long gap I need, and people behind get rather frustrated. In the Z06 it's a breeze. Wait for a 8-10 second gap and floor it. People automatically move over to the left lane, because they think you will be in the way, of course they never catch me and move back over to the right as I disappear into the distance.
Actually now that I think about it, most of my examples are just me driving immaturely and irresponsibly in a 400hp car. Man I love it.
:hesaid: Post of the month.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2010, 11:00:08 AM
:facepalm: at the continued Mustang fanboyism. It's been pretty much proven the first few GTs tested were ringers.
Really? So the 1 oe 2 Camaros that hit 60 mph in 4.5 seconds are ringers too? Because most tested in the first year did it in 4.8 seconds. Now all of a sudden they're doing it in 4.5 and 4.6 and they're not ringers? Fuck off. It's just the difference between good and bad testing conditions and different drivers.
Hey, if you have someone else's car to clutch dump from 5,000 RPM and you don't have to worry about the repair bills or voiding a warranty, getting a Mustang to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds shouldn't be too hard to do.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 16, 2010, 12:52:05 PM
Hey, if you have someone else's car to clutch dump from 5,000 RPM and you don't have to worry about the repair bills or voiding a warranty, getting a Mustang to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds shouldn't be too hard to do.
It's been done by at least 2 publications so far. Cougs likes the use th slowest ever time published for the GT of 4.6 seconds and the fastest ever time published for the Camaro of 4.5 seconds to justify what he says. I like to use the fastest times from both, or if he likes, I could use the slowest times for both which are 4.6 for the Mustang and 4.9 for the Camaro. Somehow I don't think he would approve....but I digress. This thread is about supercars and whether they excite people anymore or not.
Oh, trust me, I want that 400 hp Prodrive STI whenever it comes out. 3.5 seconds to 60 mph or so -- now that's a supercar. :lol:
Okay, time to get back on topic...
Quote from: the Teuton on May 16, 2010, 01:29:20 PM
Oh, trust me, I want that 400 hp Prodrive STI whenever it comes out. 3.5 seconds to 60 mph or so -- now that's a supercar. :lol:
Okay, time to get back on topic...
I love that Prodrive concept. Too bad they'll never build it.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 16, 2010, 01:32:16 PM
I love that Prodrive concept. Too bad they'll never build it.
Different car. They're supposedly planning on coming out with a 400-450 hp version of the hatchback in limited numbers. It should be beastly.
Quote from: CALL_911 on May 16, 2010, 11:16:00 AM
I don't know, Cougs. Based on its specs, I'd expect it to churn out some gnarly numbers.
I'm not saying otherwise really, just picking and poking at the unrelenting Mustangism.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 16, 2010, 08:36:02 PM
I'm not saying otherwise really, just picking and poking at the unrelenting Mustangism.
It was a somewhat weird comment, but it was still relevant. Relatively normal cars of today would wipe the floor with many cars costing more (especially factoring in inflation) from the past in many contests of performance. Does that make them better cars? Not necessarily. But it speaks a lot to the advances in automotive and manufacturing engineering.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 16, 2010, 08:58:58 PM
It was a somewhat weird comment, but it was still relevant. Relatively normal cars of today would wipe the floor with many cars costing more (especially factoring in inflation) from the past in many contests of performance. Does that make them better cars? Not necessarily. But it speaks a lot to the advances in automotive and manufacturing engineering.
True in general, but in specific the Diablo would absolutely murder an '11 Mustang GT - most any road test anyone cares to Google shows 0-60 under 4 sec and 1/4 mile under 12 sec.
Quote from: Submariner on May 15, 2010, 12:06:11 AM
The 458 (According to Ferrari) is faster around a track than an Enzo...that's pretty damn good.
The 458 isn't as "cool" (as subjective as that may be) to me as the 430. The Gated shifter, the simplistic interior, none of the silly looking air intakes, etc. I think it looks better, and from what I have heard (which as of now is unreliable because of how new it is) is more involving. That being said, the 458 from a technological standpoint is one hell of a car.
My dad's friend has an F430 - 6 speed. He is waiting for his 458 to show up to his front door. I'll reserve judgment on it's looks until I see it in the flesh.
I don't care how fast it goes around a track.
There was a time when Ferrari looked at the Porsche 959 and deemed it too much technology for a car like Ferrari. That's when they made the F40. That's the Ferrari I want to see again. Not some poseur bullshit with an automatic transmission and electronics so advanced that they're one step away from autopilot. That's not Ferrari to me.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 15, 2010, 10:06:27 AM
458 performance > Enzo performance
458 price (x3.5) < Enzo price
Granted with that kind of cold hard logic the GT-R could be rationalized, but at the end of the day the 458 is still a Ferrari... and not a weird one like the 408 or F50; it's a true engineering achievement that still screams with passion. I don't know what more you want lol.
If this weren't a Ferrari, it wouldn't get a free pass. You can't put a horse up front and call it passionate when there's that much computer tech going on. If anything, I admire the GT-R even more in light of the 458. I'd like to see these two automatic only, autopilot machines go up against each other.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on May 15, 2010, 10:50:39 AM
This thread has changed what i think of a supercar. IMO the level of supercar has been taken up to the level of pagoni and veyron
I've always considered "supercar" to be the top. Cars I don't consider supercars, for example:
911, GT3, GT2
430
458
Gallardo
DB9
DBS
V8 Vantage
SL65 AMG
Cars I do:
599
Murcielago
Vanquish
SLS
SLR
Borderline:
R8
Just a few examples.
so you're saying an R8 is closer to a supercar than a GT2? :wtf:
Quote from: SVT_Power on May 17, 2010, 07:40:08 AM
so you're saying an R8 is closer to a supercar than a GT2? :wtf:
Yup.
The GT2 is based on a car that isn't a supercar (the 911) and therefore can't be a supercar itself unless you then consider the base 911 a supercar, which I have trouble with for many reasons. One, it's not expensive enough. Two, it seats four. Three, the performance isn't insane enough. The R8 is a quandary. It's got a V8 or V10, it's midengined, it's a range topper, and it's not based on a lesser model. But I'm hesitating on price and competition, as no one really can seem to decide what cars are to be deemed competitors. Does it really compete with the 911 C4S? Then definitely not a supercar. 911 Turbo and SLS? Then it's definitely in the supercar mix.
The rules may seem silly, but I think we had a thread on this about a year ago and came up with some criteria on what is and isn't considered a supercar. The GT2 and proposed GT2 RS are interesting cases; they may jump supercar into "hypercar" territory, which, as of now, remains only loosely defined.
Quote from: Raza on May 17, 2010, 10:10:19 AM
Yup.
The GT2 is based on a car that isn't a supercar (the 911) and therefore can't be a supercar itself unless you then consider the base 911 a supercar, which I have trouble with for many reasons. One, it's not expensive enough. Two, it seats four. Three, the performance isn't insane enough. The R8 is a quandary. It's got a V8 or V10, it's midengined, it's a range topper, and it's not based on a lesser model. But I'm hesitating on price and competition, as no one really can seem to decide what cars are to be deemed competitors. Does it really compete with the 911 C4S? Then definitely not a supercar. 911 Turbo and SLS? Then it's definitely in the supercar mix.
The rules may seem silly, but I think we had a thread on this about a year ago and came up with some criteria on what is and isn't considered a supercar. The GT2 and proposed GT2 RS are interesting cases; they may jump supercar into "hypercar" territory, which, as of now, remains only loosely defined.
Razr
If u consider the F40 a supercar u have to consider the GT2 RS a supercar. They're both based on lesser, plebian sports cars and they're both the fastest things their respective companies have to offer in their respective model years. Being a purist doesn't seem to be much fun if it centers around arguing semantics....
By the same token I would say the Vette ZR-1 is a supercar as well. A bad one, by comparison, but IMO no less outrageous in performance than a Diablo, but for 1/3 the price. IDK. I don't think unobtainability should be a pre-requisite for supercars. In Mark Wan's review of the 360 Modena on Autozine.org, he said that a supercar can be defined as a car in which 100 MPH can be reached in under 10 seconds (which the 360 was able to achieve). I would say that might be lowered to 8 seconds for cars today.
The F40 may have some roots in a lesser car, but that is not the same thing as being a trim level of another car. It really is like calling the SL65 a supercar. The GT2 is the same car, same chassis, and same name and shape as the base 911. Now mind you, you all love to argue semantics with me, as if a classification takes something away from the car. The same way that being a GT and not a sports car takes nothing away from being a great performing car, being based on a lesser, non-supercar takes nothing away from the car's qualities. If you Dodge were to take a Caliber SRT-4, drop in a V12, and make it go around the 'Ring in 7 minutes, that's quite an achievement--but that is not a supercar.
Supercars have to be viewed in only their contemporary periods; you can't say that a car like the F40 or Enzo is no longer a supercar because the 458 is faster around a track. That's why you can't have set and specific performance-based statistics to define a supercar, because technology evolves over time and creates faster cars. It's not a valid metric for defining a supercar.
Raza, the R8 and the Gallardo are the same car. If one is, both are. If one isn't, neither are. A super car doesn't have to be the range topper, if a company ONLY makes supercars. It's like saying the Ghost isn't a luxury car because Rolls also makes the Phantom.
You're right about only comparing them to their era, however.
Supercars should be the passion of one person or a small group of people, and not committee designed, bean counter engineered compromises. Supercars probably shouldn't have the word practical in any dictionary associated with them, unless preceeded by the word "not." ;) They shoud be outrageous/excessive for their time, and should inspire irrational passion in the viewer, and should NOT be attainable easily by the average person (not saying they need to be expensive, however. But if they are inexpensive, they need to have taken much sweat equity to possess/create).
And ignoring them/discounting them to concentrate on "attainable" cars is like saying "I'll never look at art because I can only afford a velvet dogs-playing-cards." Or saying "I'll never appreciate a Frank Lloyd Wright building because I can only afford a double wide." I can't afford supercars, either, but they are still the inspiration for the passion for performance cars.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 19, 2010, 07:40:49 AM
Raza, the R8 and the Gallardo are the same car. If one is, both are. If one isn't, neither are. A super car doesn't have to be the range topper, if a company ONLY makes supercars. It's like saying the Ghost isn't a luxury car because Rolls also makes the Phantom.
You're right about only comparing them to their era, however.
Supercars should be the passion of one person or a small group of people, and not committee designed, bean counter engineered compromises. Supercars probably shouldn't have the word practical in any dictionary associated with them, unless preceeded by the word "not." ;) They shoud be outrageous/excessive for their time, and should inspire irrational passion in the viewer, and should NOT be attainable easily by the average person (not saying they need to be expensive, however. But if they are inexpensive, they need to have taken much sweat equity to possess/create).
And ignoring them/discounting them to concentrate on "attainable" cars is like saying "I'll never look at art because I can only afford a velvet dogs-playing-cards." Or saying "I'll never appreciate a Frank Lloyd Wright building because I can only afford a double wide." I can't afford supercars, either, but they are still the inspiration for the passion for performance cars.
If they are indeed the same car (though I think that's not totally accurate, I know there are shared aspects of the design and much of the chassis is shared) then I have to say no.
However, I stand by my ranger topper argument. The Rolls Royce comparison is not apt in my eyes, since luxury isn't defined by being the top, whereas the term "super" in supercar implies that there is nothing above it:
?adjective
6. of the highest degree, power, etc.
Whereas luxury isn't defined by being above anything else, but simply affording the unnecessary.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1327916#msg1327916 date=1274277676
However, I stand by my ranger topper argument. The Rolls Royce comparison is not apt in my eyes, since luxury isn't defined by being the top, whereas the term "super" in supercar implies that there is nothing above it:
In that case, there can be only one "supercar" at any given time: whichever car is the top. Not one from each manufacturer, but only one, period. And even if you say only one from each manufacturer, then you have to discount versions of a single model, too. Not all Murceilagos can be supercars, only the top version. Not all F40s could be supercars, only the LM version. Not all McLaren F1s were supercars, only the LM version, etc. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that.
A Gallardo Superleggera is as much a supercar as a Ford GT or even it's own bigger brother, the Murcie.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 19, 2010, 08:07:16 AM
In that case, there can be only one "supercar" at any given time: whichever car is the top. Not one from each manufacturer, but only one, period. And even if you say only one from each manufacturer, then you have to discount versions of a single model, too. Not all Murceilagos can be supercars, only the top version. Not all F40s could be supercars, only the LM version. Not all McLaren F1s were supercars, only the LM version, etc. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that.
A Gallardo Superleggera is as much a supercar as a Ford GT or even it's own bigger brother, the Murcie.
Now you're taking to the extreme just to be a bit silly. A supercar is the best that any manufacturer can do, and when viewed in comparison to similar models, it must be competitive. It's why the Murcielago is a supercar and the Hyundai Genesis is not. Porsche, for example, has a range topper, the GT2. Yet, it's not a supercar, and the Carrera GT was. So in my eyes, currently, Porsche has no supercar. Again, that takes nothing from the cars, but I don't think any of them fall into that category. If a car company can do better and has proven that they can do better by putting a model out, I'm not sure how anything that falls short can be considered "super-".
The Gallardo is clearly not the best Lamborghini can do because there is a car above it, the Murcielago, which is the best that they can do. Now, yes, they did tweak it to make the cars even better, like the LP640, the Reventon, and the like, but I don't think those trim levels of the top car take anything away from them because they did come out afterwards. Were it other way around, were the LP640, for example, a decontented, lower price version of the Reventon, then its status would be in doubt.
Mind you though, "supercar" is free to be interpreted however you like, as it is loosely and vaguely defined (as opposed to sedan, coupe, wagon, et al), so this is just my view of it. I don't mean it to be gospel, it's just how I see it.
:rolleyes:
If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 19, 2010, 08:58:55 AM
:rolleyes:
If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.
Yeah, but if a supercar company makes a car, is it always a supercar?
Quote from: SVT666 on May 19, 2010, 08:58:55 AM
:rolleyes:
If all a car company makes are supercars, then they're all supercars.
I'm sorry, I disagree. More than one car cannot be the best they can be. It cannot be super if there is one above.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1327942#msg1327942 date=1274281892
I'm sorry, I disagree. More than one car cannot be the best they can be. It cannot be super if there is one above.
A 599GTB is every bit a supercar as the 458. It's nearly as fast, if not just as fast, but has a totally different drivetrain layout. It's a completely different car, but it's definitely a supercar.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on May 19, 2010, 09:03:41 AM
Yeah, but if a supercar company makes a car, is it always a supercar?
No. Porsche has proven that with the Cayenne, Boxster, Cayman, and Panamera. But if all they make are supercars, like Lamborghini, then they're supercars.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 19, 2010, 09:58:08 AM
A 599GTB is every bit a supercar as the 458. It's nearly as fast, if not just as fast, but has a totally different drivetrain layout. It's a completely different car, but it's definitely a supercar.
And yet, Ferrari's pricing scheme says the 599 is better than the 458. Therefore, the 458 is not a supercar.
The 458 is the entry level Ferrari, discounting Maserati or the old adage that the entry level Ferrari is a used Ferrari.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 11:13:38 AM
The 458 is the entry level Ferrari, discounting Maserati or the old adage that the entry level Ferrari is a used Ferrari.
Precisely. Entry level can never be super. To tweak Chris's analogy a bit, it's like saying the Mercedes C class is on the same level as the S class because they're both luxury cars made by the same manufacturer, and the materials, engine, chassis, and technology don't separate them.
Isn't the California the entry level Ferrari?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 19, 2010, 11:26:56 AM
Isn't the California the entry level Ferrari?
Oh yes. Still doesn't make the 458 a supercar.
A supercar should be something you don't see every day. I've seen more Gallardos out here than I have Corvettes lately. But I have never seen a Murcielago out here.
There's an exclusivity factor, as well as a performance factor, that's needed.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 11:33:14 AM
A supercar should be something you don't see every day. I've seen more Gallardos out here than I have Corvettes lately. But I have never seen a Murcielago out here.
There's an exclusivity factor, as well as a performance factor, that's needed.
I haven't seen a Mitsubishi in a long time, does that make them supercars? :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on May 19, 2010, 11:52:49 AM
I haven't seen a Mitsubishi in a long time, does that make them supercars? :lol:
Performance and exclusivity? ...or how Rag forgot to read...
Your rules suck guys. They don't make any sense at all...especially the "don't see them every day" requirement and the "Must be the fastest and most expensive int he manufacturer's lineup". :rolleyes:
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 12:08:32 PM
Performance and exclusivity? ...or how Rag forgot to read...
Evo? :devil:
Quote from: SVT666 on May 19, 2010, 12:19:46 PM
Your rules suck guys. They don't make any sense at all...especially the "don't see them every day" requirement and the "Must be the fastest and most expensive int he manufacturer's lineup". :rolleyes:
Okay, it's easy to throw stones....what defines a supercar to you?
Quote from: thecarnut on May 19, 2010, 12:22:15 PM
Evo? :devil:
You're right. Those are exclusive to every rice boiz parking lot at Starbucks only.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 12:29:16 PM
You're right. Those are exclusive to every rice boiz parking lot at Starbucks only.
I think I've seen 4 total in my life. Two X's and two VIII/IX's. More exclusive than Porsches and Lambos for me!
Quote from: thecarnut on May 19, 2010, 12:33:32 PM
I think I've seen 4 total in my life. Two X's and two VIII/IX's. More exclusive than Porsches and Lambos for me!
Very odd...
I see at least one just about every day. Of course, we have crappy weather and more mud and snow to flog around in over here.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1328061#msg1328061 date=1274293569
Okay, it's easy to throw stones....what defines a supercar to you?
Top Speed. Today, anything that has a top speed in excess of 200 mph is a supercar to me.
Gallardo
Murcielago
458
599
Corvette ZR1
Viper
Porsche 911 GT2
Zonda
Veyron
etc.
I don't give a rat's ass if it's based on a lesser car or not. If it goes over 200 mph, then it's a supercar.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 12:39:35 PM
Very odd...
I see at least one just about every day. Of course, we have crappy weather and more mud and snow to flog around in over here.
I see Lambos, Ferraris, etc. here almost everyday from May - September.
Do you consider them exclusive and rare? Fact: There are more Gallardos on the road than current generation Camrys with manual transmissions.
Quote from: the Teuton on May 19, 2010, 11:33:14 AM
A supercar should be something you don't see every day. I've seen more Gallardos out here than I have Corvettes lately. But I have never seen a Murcielago out here.
There's an exclusivity factor, as well as a performance factor, that's needed.
Someone in my hometown has a beautiful dark red Murcielago that I've seen driving around a few times, and I've seen one or two around Atlanta, but yeah, they're pretty rare.
Quote from: Raza on May 19, 2010, 11:30:53 AM
Oh yes. Still doesn't make the 458 a supercar.
Oh, I agree there (and with most of what you've said in the thread). I even hesitate to call the 599 a supercar. Not really sure why... it just doesn't seem to quite have it. That might just be a personal issue though.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 19, 2010, 02:10:25 PM
Someone in my hometown has a beautiful dark red Murcielago that I've seen driving around a few times, and I've seen one or two around Atlanta, but yeah, they're pretty rare.
Oh, I agree there (and with most of what you've said in the thread). I even hesitate to call the 599 a supercar. Not really sure why... it just doesn't seem to quite have it. That might just be a personal issue though.
FR layout and kinda ugly have anything to do with it?
See, I wanted to blame it on the FR layout, but I definitely consider the SLR to be a supercar, so :huh:.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 19, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
See, I wanted to blame it on the FR layout, but I definitely consider the SLR to be a supercar, so :huh:.
And the 599 accelerates faster, has the same top speed, and goes around a track faster.
Quote from: Raza on May 19, 2010, 11:25:36 AM
Precisely. Entry level can never be super. To tweak Chris's analogy a bit, it's like saying the Mercedes C class is on the same level as the S class because they're both luxury cars made by the same manufacturer, and the materials, engine, chassis, and technology don't separate them.
That's not what Chris was saying. The Ghost is just about the same as the Phantom, just smaller and maybe not quite as many luxuries. It's still just about the most luxurious car you can get on the planet, therefore it's a "super luxury" car, just like the Phantom. The C-Class is nowhere near as good as the S-Class so of course it isn't on the same level.
And I agree with Chris. You cannot put an objective definition on something so subjective as a supercar. To me, being "super" has nothing to do with speed. It has to have passion and no be compromised. A Lotus 7 could be considered a supercar. It may not be as fast as a Veyron, but it has the soul of a supercar. No compromises, balls to the walls. It's not a car your grandma is gonna want to drive.
I'm siding with that Raza fellow again, as often happens when definitions and the like come into question. I'm inclined to say that the R8 isn't a supercar, either.
This shit isn't hard. It's a wealthy persons toy. A supercar has to do with the price. It isn't a supercar unless it's rare and expensive. The R8 is basically a gallardo, both of which share too many Audi parts, and may not be rare/expensive enough to qualify.
I see and drive expensive cars quite often. The last one that made me say, "godamn", was a 612 Scaglietti. It blew $150k cars out of the water.
Quote from: Middle_Path on May 20, 2010, 02:53:57 AM
This shit isn't hard. It's a wealthy persons toy. A supercar has to do with the price. It isn't a supercar unless it's rare and expensive. The R8 is basically a gallardo, both of which share too many Audi parts, and may not be rare/expensive enough to qualify.
I see and drive expensive cars quite often. The last one that made may say, "godamn", was a 612 Scaglietti. It blew $150k cars out of the water.
I was wondering if the 612 would come up. While I do find it attractive (and I must say I'm in the minority, I know), I think the fact that it has four seats discounts it from the "supercar" category because extra seats (even useless ones) indicates a consideration of practicality.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 19, 2010, 12:39:46 PM
Top Speed. Today, anything that has a top speed in excess of 200 mph is a supercar to me.
Gallardo
Murcielago
458
599
Corvette ZR1
Viper
Porsche 911 GT2
Zonda
Veyron
etc.
I don't give a rat's ass if it's based on a lesser car or not. If it goes over 200 mph, then it's a supercar.
So, does the top speed requirement change per decade?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=22006.msg1328893#msg1328893 date=1274454859
So, does the top speed requirement change per decade?
Yes. 20 years ago only the Diablo was capable.
Quote from: Raza on May 21, 2010, 09:12:20 AM
I was wondering if the 612 would come up. While I do find it attractive (and I must say I'm in the minority, I know), I think the fact that it has four seats discounts it from the "supercar" category because extra seats (even useless ones) indicates a consideration of practicality.
Well the McLaren F1 has three seats. That's one extra seat, so it's trying to be practical.
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:04:41 PM
Well the McLaren F1 has three seats. That's one extra seat, so it's trying to be practical.
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
You need a place to put the pussy. And the McLaren will let you bring two for a threesome. And because you're rich they will be young, skinny and hot. So they won't add much weight.
Quote from: Onslaught on May 23, 2010, 07:29:29 PM
You need a place to put the pussy. And the McLaren will let you bring two for a threesome. And because you're rich they will be young, skinny and hot. So they won't add much weight.
What's wrong with a 612 then? That gives you the possibility of a foursome...
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:04:41 PM
Well the McLaren F1 has three seats. That's one extra seat, so it's trying to be practical.
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
But how does one engage in a long distance road rally type of event without a navigator?
Quote from: MX793 on May 23, 2010, 07:54:45 PM
But how does one engage in a long distance road rally type of event without a navigator?
Tom Tom
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:04:41 PM
Well the McLaren F1 has three seats. That's one extra seat, so it's trying to be practical.
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
Didn't US Spec F1s only have one seat?
Yes. Ameritech imported F1s and had to remove both passenger seats as part of certification. Owners were able to put them back in after the fact...along with removal of the ugly ass bumpers Ameritech had to install.
So there weren't really any "US Spec" F1s, there was just a company that made the modifications necessary to import them here?
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:04:41 PM
Well the McLaren F1 has three seats. That's one extra seat, so it's trying to be practical.
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
I was waiting for someone to mention the fact that the Mclaren had three seats. I think they were the byproduct of the center seating position, and not a practical concern, like a back bench is, and therefore are given a pass.
Having three seats is a tacit acknowledgement that F1 owners are likely to bring home more than one supermodel at a time. They are practical.
Quote from: Laconian on May 24, 2010, 11:03:39 AM
Having three seats is a tacit acknowledgement that F1 owners are likely to bring home more than one supermodel at a time. They are practical.
And conscious of the environment, too. Having to make a second trip to pick up your other girlfriend has to be a little burdensome at the gas pump.
You guys clearly haven't seen Batman Begins.
(I couldn't find the scene in English, but you get the point.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oga4a7OLMT0
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 24, 2010, 03:24:42 PM
You guys clearly haven't seen Batman Begins.
(I couldn't find the scene in English, but you get the point.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oga4a7OLMT0
:lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 23, 2010, 07:04:41 PM
Actually, I don't think true supercars should have any extra seats at all. They should just have the driver's seat. Passengers are just compromises, they add weight and distract you. True supercars would never include such things.
That reminds me when I was learning to auto-x. I was fast, but this one track I couldn't perfect. I asked a heavy set instructor to ride with me. He said fine, warned me that my times would be slower, and the car would handle way off due to the extra weight. I ignored him and come a few laps later we pitted. Sure as shit, he did help my lines/brake points, but the car wouldn't corner for shit with his 250lb ass next to me. Tripped me out the first time.
Don't know how he fit into that 914 of his.
Quote from: Middle_Path on May 26, 2010, 01:17:38 AM
That reminds me when I was learning to auto-x. I was fast, but this one track I couldn't perfect. I asked a heavy set instructor to ride with me. He said fine, warned me that my times would be slower, and the car would handle way off due to the extra weight. I ignored him and come a few laps later we pitted. Sure as shit, he did help my lines/brake points, but the car wouldn't corner for shit with his 250lb ass next to me. Tripped me out the first time.
Don't know how he fit into that 914 of his.
As a counterpoint, I found that having a 100-110lb female in the passenger seat in an autocross tended to balance the car out perfectly, making it easier to go faster. Of course the possible attempts to impress may have helped as well... ;)
I didn't read any posts except the first one, but I agree with that one. And I must add one thing: If there was the invention of a time machine I'd travel back to 1955 and buy a Mercedes 300 SL and hammer that baby over the empty Autobahnen with 260 km/h. Nobody would even go half as fast as I go. Now that's a supecar! :wub:
Quote from: ChrisV on May 26, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
As a counterpoint, I found that having a 100-110lb female in the passenger seat in an autocross tended to balance the car out perfectly, making it easier to go faster. Of course the possible attempts to impress may have helped as well... ;)
:mrcool: Anything to get up a girls skirt. It gives any man superpowers and I hope it worked for you.
Quote from: Middle_Path on May 27, 2010, 01:52:25 AM
:mrcool: Anything to get up a girls skirt. It gives any man superpowers and I hope it worked for you.
It's the car. Chicks dig the car.