Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.

mobby_6kl posted:

If the acceleration figures are to be trusted, the extra 125hp translate into a 0.5 second advantage over the Sierra, so I'm curious how that would work out in the real world. Also lol it's only 0.1 seconds faster (if that) than the Cossie Escort, though I'm using metric wikipedia numbers as it's impossible to find stock performances anywhere.
There's probably only about five 3-door Sierras left for which standard performance numbers are relevant anyway. The basic ones are easily tuned, and the RS500s are designed to be. As in they come with a second set of injectors plumbed in and ready. 3-doors really don't weigh an awful lot, either.

quote:

[beaten like a fwd econobox with too much power]
Not all RS cars were AWD though, even the "proper" ones. The original Escorts as well as the early Sierras were RWD, IIRC.
All the original Mk1/Mk2 RS 'Scorts are RWD, as are the 3-door and early 4-door Sierras. Later 4-door Sierras and the Escort Cosworths are AWD - the Escort is really a cut-and-shut job on a Sierra floorpan, the first "actual" Escort with AWD being the Mk5 RS2000, which had it as an option.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dog Paddle
May 1, 2007

by Ozma

kimbo305 posted:

I'm cool with that. As bizarre as the Vehicross, which had an equally pinched tumblehome.

The vehicross is a lot cooler than that horrible thing's front end. I thought the headlights were enormous fog lights, then I realized. It's just ugly. Awesome on Nissan for trying different designs, but I think they can do better than that.

kimbo305
Jun 9, 2007

actually, yeah, I am a little mad

Dog Paddle posted:

The vehicross is a lot cooler than that horrible thing's front end. I thought the headlights were enormous fog lights, then I realized. It's just ugly. Awesome on Nissan for trying different designs, but I think they can do better than that.

I don't really care how they're splitting up the lights -- the bizarreness just works for me. It reminds me a bit of the Kia Soul, maybe because of the C-pillar.

KeanuReevesGhost
Apr 24, 2008

Itzena posted:

You think that's bug-eyed? Wait until you see the Juke:



Which set are the headlights?

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





The front looks like some unholy marriage between a Toyota 2000GT and an early Volvo 200 series.

Coredump
Dec 1, 2002

JackRabbitStorm posted:

Which set are the headlights?

One set is the low beams and the other set is the high beams. DUH.

Leperflesh
May 17, 2007

Good lord.

Its headlights have crawled back onto the hood. And its fog lights have become headlights. And... it's spawned new little foglights where they're supposed to be, too!

The rest of the design is okay I guess, not horrible, but the headlight thing is just hosed up.

Russian Bear
Dec 26, 2007


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/science/earth/02emit.html?hp

quote:

WASHINGTON — The federal government issued final rules establishing the first greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and light trucks on Thursday, ending a 30-year battle between regulators and automakers.
Enlarge This Image


The U.S. issued new rules that sets emissions and mileage standards for automobiles and light trucks.

The new rules, jointly written by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, set emissions and mileage standards that will translate to a fleet average of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016, nearly a 40 percent improvement over today’s fuel economy.

Officials said the program would save the owner of an average 2016 car $3,000 in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle and eliminate emissions of nearly a billion tons of climate-altering gases over the lives of the regulated vehicles.

Reaching the new efficiency level will add about $1,000 to the cost of the average new car by 2016, according to industry and government estimates.

It is the first time that limits have been set on vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. The E.P.A. is writing greenhouse gas standards for stationary sources like power plants and steel mills, but those will not take effect before next year, agency officials have said.

“This is a significant step toward cleaner air and energy efficiency and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand,” said Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.

The vehicle emissions program traveled a tortuous path through state regulatory agencies, the courts, Congress and the federal government before culminating in a groundbreaking agreement announced last May by President Obama, auto executives, labor leaders and environmental advocates.

The accord produced a single national standard based on a tough auto emissions law enacted by California in 2004. The automakers have complained of the cost of compliance but welcomed a national plan that did not require them to build different vehicles for different markets to comply with varying state laws.

“This as an example of where the federal government has actually done something right,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “A year ago we were facing piecemeal policies set out by E.P.A., D.O.T. and groups of different states. Our auto engineers cannot design vehicles to different standards.”

But Ms. Bergquist said the program announced on Thursday would end in 2016 and there was no map for the road beyond. She noted that California regulators were already working on tough new standards for 2017 vehicles and that auto companies needed to know what fuel economy rules they would be required to meet.

The rule sets different mileage and emissions standards for different sizes of vehicles, and major manufacturers will have to meet increasingly stringent standards over the 2012-16 period. Vehicles that run exclusively on electricity, like the new Nissan Leaf and the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt, will be classed as zero-emissions vehicles, although there is a cap on the number of all-electric vehicles that carmakers can claim credit for.

Small-volume automakers like Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin and Lamborghini will not have to meet the new standards immediately, but must purchase credits from other carmakers. By 2017, all car companies will have to come into compliance.

The rule estimates the cost of compliance for the industry at $52 billion over the five years of the program, while it calculates benefits at $240 billion. Those benefits include fuel savings, pollution reduction and reduced oil imports.

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has pressed for stricter fuel economy standards for years and was a co-author of global warming legislation that passed the House last June.

“After three decades of stagnant fuel economy policy and rising gas prices,” Mr. Markey said, “these new standards finally put America on the path to making our vehicles more fuel-efficient and reducing our dependence on imported oil.”

I like that this will push car companies to further develop hybrid/electric technology, however I don't like that government is mandating this and "carbon credit" taxing the smaller companies that cater to niche markets.

frozenphil
Mar 13, 2003

YOU CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE SO BIG THAT 80 GRIT CAN'T FIX IT!
:smug:
Have you thought, "You know, an Elise would be a lot cooler if it had 1000hp"? Well, the Hennessey boys agree with you.

http://www.hennesseyperformancestore.com/venomgt.html







quote:

SEALY, TEXAS & SILVERSTONE, ENGLAND, March 29, 2010 - Hennessey Performance is pleased to introduce the first official images of its Venom GT supercar. Based upon the Lotus Elise, the Venom GT combines a high-tech, lightweight British chassis with a powerful American V8.

“This is not the first time that Britain and America have joined forces to produce a weapon of mass propulsion”, said company founder and president, John Hennessey. “Over fifty years ago the American-built P-51 Mustang fighter aircraft was flown into history powered by a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Today the Hennessey Venom GT promises to set a new standard of power to weight ratio in the rarefied air of today's supercar market.”

SOMETIMES LESS EQUALS MORE
In the case of the Venom GT, less weight means more performance. The Venom GT will have a production curb weight of less than 2,400 lbs (1,071 kilos) aided by its lightweight carbon fiber bodywork and carbon fiber wheels. Stopping power is delivered via Brembo brakes with 6-piston calipers up front and 4-piston calipers in rear clamping down on 15-inch carbon ceramic rotors.

SOMETIMES MORE EQUALS MORE
The Venom GT’s base power plant is the supercharged 6.2 liter LS9 V8 (the same as in the Corvette ZR1) tweaked by Hennessey to 725 bhp. The company will also be offering 1000 bhp and 1200 bhp twin turbo V8 engine variants. The mid-engine V8 will transmit its power to the rear tires via a Ricardo 6-speed gearbox.

POWER WITH CONTROL
Hennessey plans to manage power output by using a programmable traction control system. CFD (computational fluid dynamic) tested bodywork and down force will also help keep the Venom stable at speed. An active aero system with adjustable rear wing will deploy under varying conditions on both the road and racetrack. An adjustable suspension system will allow ride height adjustments according to speed and driving conditions. Finally, power will be put to the ground via massive Michelin PS2 tires.

POWERED BY THE USA, BUILT IN THE UK
Hennessey will be building the power plants at its Texas facility. The engines will then be air freighted to the company's assembly facility near Silverstone, England where the Venom GT is built and tested. Venom GT buyer will be offered a 1-day driver orientation and instruction program by a Hennessey factory test driver, at a track in the UK or USA prior to delivery.

LIMITED PRODUCTION
The company plans to establish a network of Venom GT dealers and distributors in the Middle East, Europe, Russia, Australia and Asia. Production is limited to just 10 vehicles per year and the company already has orders for 4 Venom GT’s.

About Hennessey Performance
Hennessey Performance has been making fast cars go faster since 1991. It operates from a 30,000 square foot workshop and showroom facility situated on 143 acres near Sealy, Texas (about 45 minutes west of Houston). The company also has a showroom and installation facility located in Lake Forest, California. Hennessey Performance offers a wide variety of dyno proven, track tested parts and upgrades for a variety of modern performance vehicles. Hennessey Performance is also the only tuner in North America that operates its own test track – Lonestar Motorsports Park.

orange lime
Jul 24, 2008

by Fistgrrl

frozenphil posted:

Have you thought, "You know, an Elise would be a lot cooler if it had 1000hp"? Well, the Hennessey boys agree with you.

http://www.hennesseyperformancestore.com/venomgt.html







That's pretty damned awesome, but I bet Colin Chapman is spinning in his grave. Also, lol@ trying to drive a 1200 horsepower car with only 1200 pounds on the driven axle.

decahedron
Aug 8, 2005

by Ozma
It probably takes a week to hook up. I bet it would be fun as hell.

Frosty-
Jan 17, 2004

In war, you kill people in order to change their minds. Remember that; it's fuckin' important.
Do Hennessey cars even exist? I mean a 4th grader could come up with an idea for a badass car with 1000hp but he probably won't ever build one. I feel this rule generally applies to Hennessey.

grover
Jan 23, 2002

PEW PEW PEW
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:

Frosty- posted:

Do Hennessey cars even exist? I mean a 4th grader could come up with an idea for a badass car with 1000hp but he probably won't ever build one. I feel this rule generally applies to Hennessey.
They're talking about making 10 of these cars, PER YEAR! What's their production shop, I wonder, 1 guy, part time?

I do wonder how they plan to put down 1200hp through PS2s.

Professor Bling
Nov 12, 2008

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

frozenphil posted:

Have you thought, "You know, an Elise would be a lot cooler if it had 1000hp"?

This thought has never, in my 21 years, ever crossed my mind.

It seems like the kind of idea Smokey Yunick would have had if he was drunk off his rear end and British.

grover
Jan 23, 2002

PEW PEW PEW
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:

Professor Bling posted:

This thought has never, in my 21 years, ever crossed my mind.

It seems like the kind of idea Smokey Yunick would have had if he was drunk off his rear end and British.
Why don't they offer a 300-400hp engine? Why put 189hp when they could be going even faster still? Would jump from being practically a supercar to actually being an affordable supercar.

Blacknose
Jul 28, 2006

Meet frustration face to face
A point of view creates more waves
So lose some sleep and say you tried
They've been ramping the hp up steadily over the years and you can get an Exige straight from the factory with almost 300hp now. I only wish I could afford one because I'd rock that poo poo every day.

e; Also there's the 2-Eleven which is supposed to be loving insane.

Blacknose fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Apr 2, 2010

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





grover posted:

Why don't they offer a 300-400hp engine? Why put 189hp when they could be going even faster still? Would jump from being practically a supercar to actually being an affordable supercar.

I don't know how much more power they can get out of the Toyota four-cylinder reliably. As it is, the Exige can be had with up to 260-270hp, and adding weight to an Exige or Elise is just...wrong.

MonkeyNutZ
Dec 26, 2008

"A cave isn't gonna cut it, we're going to have to use Beebo"

IOwnCalculus posted:

adding weight to an Exige or Elise is just...wrong.
I liken it to making a lowrider giraffe, it pretty much eliminates the one reason the thing was cool in the first place.

Pr0kjayhawk
Nov 30, 2002

:pervert:Zoom Zoom, motherfuckers:pervert:

IOwnCalculus posted:

I don't know how much more power they can get out of the Toyota four-cylinder reliably. As it is, the Exige can be had with up to 260-270hp, and adding weight to an Exige or Elise is just...wrong.

320-330bhp is about as high as you want to go on stock internals with the 2ZZ. (And that's assuming you don't spend a lot of time at the track. If you're not tracking the thing, why bother?)

decahedron
Aug 8, 2005

by Ozma
Usually when I look at a supercharged 260HP Exige, my first thought is "NEEDS MORE POWER" because I am a child.

XCPuff
Nov 26, 2005

FEAR THIS MAN
I don't understand why they just don't go back to the turbo ecotec?

decahedron
Aug 8, 2005

by Ozma
Since they're pretty low volume, I'd imagine that they have a contract for X thousand Toyota engines. Why would they break that contract for a (relatively) modest gain in performance?

grover
Jan 23, 2002

PEW PEW PEW
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:
:circlefap::circlefap::circlefap:

IOwnCalculus posted:

I don't know how much more power they can get out of the Toyota four-cylinder reliably. As it is, the Exige can be had with up to 260-270hp, and adding weight to an Exige or Elise is just...wrong.
Only AI can find fault with putting more power in an elise... Yeah, it's kick-rear end because it's light, but that's not just because it's light but because of it's excellent power-to-weight ratio. It does suffer at high speeds at the track due to lack of absolute horsepower and overall low top end speed. Another 100hp would help this, don't you think?

Dropping in a 1200hp engine is going to add a poo poo-load of weight, though. That 725hp Hennessey, for example:

1.8L 2ZZ-GE Engine, 218hp, 253lbs dry
6.2L LS9, 726hp (for Hennessey) 530lbs dry
+ probably beefier everything else to handle the extra power.

This, I think is absolute extreme, though; an engine half the size of the LS9 but with the same power-to-weight as the Hennessey LS9 would be a 100hp increase for the same weight as the 2ZZ-GE. I think there is a happy medium here with a reasonably bigger engine.

decahedron
Aug 8, 2005

by Ozma
The two forty has a top speed of 150mph - how many tracks have areas that you get up to more than 150 on?

Coredump
Dec 1, 2002

decahedron posted:

The two forty has a top speed of 150mph - how many tracks have areas that you get up to more than 150 on?

Okay, lets say there's not many tracks where you can get up to a high top speed. The Lotus could still use more power and there are times where it suffers from it.

frozenphil
Mar 13, 2003

YOU CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE SO BIG THAT 80 GRIT CAN'T FIX IT!
:smug:
They added 500lbs and 500hp, seems about right.

Depressing Drawers
Dec 17, 2004
UR ALREADY DED
Not exactly brand new, but I saw one of these in a Seat forecourt today, goddamn I loving love that front end. Seat Ibiza Cupra Bocanegra.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





grover posted:

I think there is a happy medium here with a reasonably bigger engine.

On one hand I disagree, because the Elise / Exige simply was never meant to go toe to toe with a 911 Turbo or a Z06 in the straightaways - it's meant to decimate them in the corners, largely by being a featherweight with excellent balance.

On the other hand, that's not a very AI answer and everyone's got a little Clarkson in 'em. I do agree that the car would probably be insane with another 100-150hp or so, but I don't know what options exist that Lotus could put out in a production-capable form (so no race-gas-only fully forged monster motor), that wouldn't add too much weight.

Besides, there is the Evora now.

Throatwarbler
Nov 17, 2008

by vyelkin
Toyota must be behind on their Consumer Reports protection payments, because they've just issued a :siren:DO NOT BUY:siren:on the Lexus GX570.

Apparently 4 ton live axle trucks don't do corners well.

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003

Throatwarbler posted:

Toyota must be behind on their Consumer Reports protection payments, because they've just issued a :siren:DO NOT BUY:siren:on the Lexus GX570.

Apparently 4 ton live axle trucks don't do corners well.

Morons. You own one of those to crawl around third world countries in while surrounded in leather and "Bubinga" wood trim. They're awesome.

kimbo305
Jun 9, 2007

actually, yeah, I am a little mad
I dunno, the Lexus does more of a bitchin drift:
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/04/13/n_toyota_lexus_gx_460_suv_skid.cnnmoney/

e: this sort of logic is also infuriating and sad:
"In real-world driving, lift-off oversteer could occur when a driver enters a highway’s exit ramp or drives through a sweeping turn and encounters an unexpected obstacle or suddenly finds that the turn is too tight for the vehicle’s speed. A natural impulse is to quickly lift off the accelerator pedal. If that were to happen in the GX, the rear could slide around far enough that a wheel could strike a curb or slide off the pavement."

kimbo305 fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 13, 2010

Kia Soul Enthusias
May 9, 2004

zoom-zoom
Toilet Rascal
I noticed this article on Jalopnik also; it's not exactly on topic but it's funny.
http://jalopnik.com/5516121/gang-moves-1800-lb-of-coke-in-fake-dakar-rally-truck

Aargh
Sep 8, 2004

MonkeyNutZ posted:

I liken it to making a lowrider giraffe


You're saying there's something wrong with this?

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Rugoberta Munchu
Jun 5, 2003

Do you want a hupyrolysege slcorpselong?

Throatwarbler posted:

Toyota must be behind on their Consumer Reports protection payments, because they've just issued a :siren:DO NOT BUY:siren:on the Lexus GX570.

Apparently 4 ton live axle trucks don't do corners well.
Toyota, now on edge after the accelerator pedal fiasco, orders Lexus dealers to stop selling the GX 460 in response.

quote:

Toyota Motor Corp has suspended sales of a new Lexus SUV in the U.S. market to investigate the risk for rollover accidents in the latest blow to the reputation of the world's largest automaker.

Toyota took the unusual action of stopping sales of the 2010 Lexus GX 460 after Consumer Reports urged shoppers not to buy the sport utility vehicle, calling it a "safety risk" because of a potential handling problem in certain turns.

orange lime
Jul 24, 2008

by Fistgrrl

kimbo305 posted:

e: this sort of logic is also infuriating and sad:
"In real-world driving, lift-off oversteer could occur when a driver enters a highway’s exit ramp or drives through a sweeping turn and encounters an unexpected obstacle or suddenly finds that the turn is too tight for the vehicle’s speed. A natural impulse is to quickly lift off the accelerator pedal. If that were to happen in the GX, the rear could slide around far enough that a wheel could strike a curb or slide off the pavement."

Consumer reports is excellent if you are a middle-aged person with kids who wants nothing more and nothing less than the absolute least eventful driving appliance you can buy.

I remember they rated the Elise terrible in suspension quality, and they knocked marks off the Insight for having limited interior space. Their system just literally does not accommodate cars that aren't Toyota Camry or equivalent. I wouldn't be surprised to see them knocking down the rating on something like a Rolls-Royce because it didn't come with child seat anchors.

FogHelmut
Dec 18, 2003

CharlesM posted:

I noticed this article on Jalopnik also; it's not exactly on topic but it's funny.
http://jalopnik.com/5516121/gang-moves-1800-lb-of-coke-in-fake-dakar-rally-truck

This is like that Mammoth Car episode of Speed Racer.

frozenphil
Mar 13, 2003

YOU CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE SO BIG THAT 80 GRIT CAN'T FIX IT!
:smug:

CharlesM posted:

I noticed this article on Jalopnik also; it's not exactly on topic but it's funny.
http://jalopnik.com/5516121/gang-moves-1800-lb-of-coke-in-fake-dakar-rally-truck

Drug cartels are so cool if you take away the whole violence and kidnapping aspects. :shobon:

Seat Safety Switch
May 27, 2008

MY RELIGION IS THE SMALL BLOCK V8 AND COMMANDMENTS ONE THROUGH TEN ARE NEVER LIFT.

Pillbug

kimbo305 posted:

e: this sort of logic is also infuriating and sad:
"In real-world driving, lift-off oversteer could occur when a driver enters a highway’s exit ramp or drives through a sweeping turn and encounters an unexpected obstacle or suddenly finds that the turn is too tight for the vehicle’s speed. A natural impulse is to quickly lift off the accelerator pedal. If that were to happen in the GX, the rear could slide around far enough that a wheel could strike a curb or slide off the pavement."
With this kind of logic, it suddenly makes sense to me why traction control is so ludicrously invasive on modern cars.

If your only instinct when going into corners too hot in any car is to suddenly lift throttle completely, you are probably going to spin out in any car, regardless of which end(s) the power is coming out of. Hell, you could probably spin out an FWD doing the same thing - and many people have.

How do these morons deal with hydroplaning? Snow? Why does it still surprise me that the majority of people are incapable of operating a car? :psyduck:

I wonder how Consumer Reports handles cars with actual snap oversteer issues.

Naky
May 30, 2001

Resident Crackhead

orange lime posted:

Consumer reports is excellent if you are a middle-aged person with kids who wants nothing more and nothing less than the absolute least eventful driving appliance you can buy.

I remember they rated the Elise terrible in suspension quality, and they knocked marks off the Insight for having limited interior space. Their system just literally does not accommodate cars that aren't Toyota Camry or equivalent. I wouldn't be surprised to see them knocking down the rating on something like a Rolls-Royce because it didn't come with child seat anchors.

Consumer reports really is terrible. Any car without ABS -and- ESC automatically on their base model loses a shitload of points from the get-go and very nearly gets put on their do not recommend car list. Never mind that research reports and statistics back up the facts that accidents aren't actually reduced by having ABS and ESC because the drivers that have them tend to drive worse thinking that those systems will save them... and they don't.

Plus they are so incredibly Honda-biased it's not even funny. They might as well call themselves the Honda Report. The last ratings I saw them do for subcompacts had the fully loaded Honda Fit rank first, and then the base model Honda Fit come in second. Did they take the fully loaded versions of every other car into consideration? Nope. Just the Fit. But then they compared every other manufacturer's base model car to the fully loaded Fit and not the base model one. What a poo poo show that review was.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bape Culture
Sep 13, 2006

Did they ever do a TVR?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply