|
InitialDave posted:Fuckin' ugly they may be, but a carbon shell at an average-consumer price point and the power & weight of an E30 325i isn't bad for something that is practically free to run. Oh drat, they have a carbon shell? that's pretty neat.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Yeah the i3, while goofy looking, is incredibly cutting edge and is BMW's first attempt at bringing some next-gen materials and such to mass market. For that reason I think it's pretty cool. It's kind of still a beta test and you're absolutely paying the early adopter tax for their carbon manufacturing and electric platform, but it's getting pretty drat close to a real, mass-market car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Baram posted:Oh drat, they have a carbon shell? that's pretty neat. Yup, they specifically built a carbon fiber parts factory over in eastern Washington for easy access to cheap hydro power. They had one of the i3's out on track at pacific raceways this weekend as one of the pace cars at the historic/vintage races. pretty neat looking in person and obviously very quiet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Doesn't the Z06 have a dry sump? I'd assume that GM's dry sump solution would be able to solve that. LS7s have been known to drop valves though. The only motor that doesn't seem to have any real track problems out of the box is the LS9/A, so everyone should buy ZR1s/CTSVs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Saw an i3 in person a couple of days ago. As goofy as it is, I do like that it goes all the way with the materials and justs screams "I'm a future car, gently caress you!" instead of being ugly/bland that most EVs or hybrids tend to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Powershift posted:But audi also has the S which means bigger engine, and RS which means biggerer engine. Except the S3 was the same displacement engine, bigger turbo A = average car S = sporty car RS = really sporty car
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Except the S3 was the same displacement engine, bigger turbo R = rich person car Q = ermmm...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Linedance posted:R = rich person car Queen car?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
qunt?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:While on the topic of engines, it seems that MB is actually going back to an inline 6 for their RWD cars. From the article: All we know is that the petrol-powered family will be available in capacities ranging from 2.2 to 3.5-liters, with the entry-level 2.2-liter version expected to churn out 367 horsepower and 650 Nm (479 lb-ft) of torque. The range-topping 3.5L I6 will presumably replace the current 4.7-liter V8 as the most powerful non-AMG version of the 2016 Mercedes-Benz E-Class W213, and will deliver some 435 horsepower and 750 Nm (553 lb-ft) of torque. That seems pretty high
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Cyrezar posted:From the article: When I got to 2.2L producing 367hp, I was expecting something like 500-600hp from the 3.5L so "only" 435hp from it is a bit disappointing. That's a massive displacement difference for only 68hp more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Muffinpox posted:LS7s have been known to drop valves though. The only motor that doesn't seem to have any real track problems out of the box is the LS9/A, so everyone should buy ZR1s/CTSVs. GM extended the warranty and did a recall on the supercharger of the LSA, which presumably meant something was wrong with it. So just the LS9 then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Except the S3 was the same displacement engine, bigger turbo
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Isn't the LS7 also pretty close to tapped out? I know it's supposedly inadvisable to use power adders due to the large bore/thin cylinder walls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Isn't the LS7 also pretty close to tapped out? I know it's supposedly inadvisable to use power adders due to the large bore/thin cylinder walls. The LSX is only 1.5mm extra bore over the LS7 and one would assume that they took the III/IV to its absolute safe maximum on everything with that thing, so I'd say that's a safe assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It sure does, as does the LS9, I think the LSA, and maaaaaybe the LS3 with the Grand Sport package. I feel like you're down to pretty fine points when complaining a street legal car can't sustain over a G cornering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Isn't the LS7 also pretty close to tapped out? I know it's supposedly inadvisable to use power adders due to the large bore/thin cylinder walls. Lingenfelter and others take the LS7 over 1000rwhp with forced induction. Stock bottom end and everything is obviously gone, but the block itself will take it. For how long is anyone's guess, but that goes for any motor when pushed to that point. Some guy cracked a block really early on being a dumb gently caress, and suddenly it morphed into a huge issue. I've seen far more of the other ones have the same issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
The only real issue with the LS7 I'm aware of was an early-on issue with valve guides due to a machining error from the factory. They were supposedly all fixed since then with a voluntary recall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
pik_d posted:When I got to 2.2L producing 367hp, I was expecting something like 500-600hp from the 3.5L so "only" 435hp from it is a bit disappointing. That's a massive displacement difference for only 68hp more. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be 267hp from the 2.2L.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Isn't the LS7 also pretty close to tapped out? I know it's supposedly inadvisable to use power adders due to the large bore/thin cylinder walls. They can pick up a good amount of power, cammed/tuned Z06s will put out in the mid 600s and if you go hog wild with intake/headers/heads, 700s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be 267hp from the 2.2L. Not with that torque.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I feel like you're down to pretty fine points when complaining a street legal car can't sustain over a G cornering. Buying a 505HP car and popping a motor due to oil starvation at locations where you can actually put down all 505HP (hint: it's the track, yo) is kinda lame. It is a fine point; however, if you're going to be building a bespoke sports car, spend the money and make sure that fucker is well oiled. Gen 4 motors. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:The LSX is only 1.5mm extra bore over the LS7 and one would assume that they took the III/IV to its absolute safe maximum on everything with that thing, so I'd say that's a safe assumption. Yeah, but if you want a huge boost-monster why waste one of the best NA engines on it? Take the extra weight penalty for the cast-iron LSX and leave the LS7 for someone who wants light weight and stupid RPMs out of a giant V8.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Phone posted:Buying a 505HP car and popping a motor due to oil starvation at locations where you can actually put down all 505HP (hint: it's the track, yo) is kinda lame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Probably the reason why the C6 Z06 / ZR1 and C7 Z51 / Z06 use a dry sump setup. Don't forget the new Camaro Z28
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Don't forget the new Camaro Z28
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
pik_d posted:When I got to 2.2L producing 367hp, I was expecting something like 500-600hp from the 3.5L so "only" 435hp from it is a bit disappointing. That's a massive displacement difference for only 68hp more. That has to be for the top-tier AMG 2.2L. I can guarantee that the more pedestrian 2.2Ts will be making closer to ~250/270. Pushing over two atmospheres into an everyday Mercedes seems like a warranty headache.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
1/4 mile times for the Hellcat are out. 10.8 @ 126 on street legal drag radials 11.2 @ 125 on factory tires. Sweet mother of god.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
The factory tires have to be drat near drag radials for that kind of number.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
So the Fusion has lost the 1.6 and manual option for 2015, but instead you can get AWD on the mid-level trim with the 2.0 now. http://wot.motortrend.com/1407_2015_ford_fusion_loses_1_6_ecoboost_and_manual_option.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The factory tires have to be drat near drag radials for that kind of number. I honestly think it's attributable to a whole bunch of computers keeping the launch control just perfect and the 8spd keeping it in the peak of the powerband. It's still insane though. I think there are only 4 or 5 cars faster than it from the factory and none of them anywhere close to sub 100K. Porsche 911 Turbo S is one that comes to mind and those are what? 180K?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
C6 zr1 could do it I think. It's not as long as a 7 series like the challenger though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
GT-R does it in 10.80, but it's just a smidge over 100k. And I'm sure that dealer markup will put the Dodge over 100k as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:So the Fusion has lost the 1.6 and manual option for 2015, but instead you can get AWD on the mid-level trim with the 2.0 now. And yet another car that has the option of the manual transmission and AWD, but not together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Ttac says the next supra will be bosom buddies with the z4 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/07/bmw-z4-toyota-supra-to-become-blood-brothers/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Has Toyota really become that lazy? BR-Z/FR-S twins and now twins with a BMW? For a Supra?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Has Toyota really become that lazy? BR-Z/FR-S twins and now twins with a BMW? For a Supra?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Has Toyota really become that lazy? BR-Z/FR-S twins and now twins with a BMW? For a Supra?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:Given projected sales numbers, these cars only make sense if the development cost is shared with another company. This, I'd rather see a joint venture than no vehicle at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This, I'd rather see a joint venture than no vehicle at all. Exactly. There's more opportunity for them to do something cool with a car that will actually be made at some point, however it turns out, than all the theoretical things the car could have been but won't ever be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:56
|
|
