emajnthis Posted November 2, 2005 Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) My only guess for Nissan releasing this 450Z is so that it doesn't conflict with skyline sales in 2007 (and vice versa). With the skyline being released globally and replacing the 350Z as Nissans top sports car, there has to be some distinction between the two to seperate them in the market place. Edited November 2, 2005 by emajnthis
emajnthis Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 That's actually pretty cool. Let's see where Nissan is going with this.Wonder what Honda has under the covers...? I hate not knowing insider information. 341586[/snapback] Honda is dumping their NSX to try and give birth to a new breed of super car. All i can say is it's about damn time, the NSX has been exactly the same (w/some minor changes to the appearance and rear suspension) since it was first conceived in the early 90's i believe 91. They're going to take the V10 that was developed for F1 racing and put it into a mid/rear platform car. But then again, Lexus/Toyota is doing the same thing... so we'll see how that competition goes.
pfunk Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 That's actually pretty cool. Let's see where Nissan is going with this.Wonder what Honda has under the covers...? I hate not knowing insider information. 341586[/snapback] Honda is dumping their NSX to try and give birth to a new breed of super car. All i can say is it's about damn time, the NSX has been exactly the same (w/some minor changes to the appearance and rear suspension) since it was first conceived in the early 90's i believe 91. They're going to take the V10 that was developed for F1 racing and put it into a mid/rear platform car. But then again, Lexus/Toyota is doing the same thing... so we'll see how that competition goes. 341873[/snapback] I watched a special on that not too long ago, for the last year they are putting out a special edition with again minor tweaks. The drivers basically said its a great car during the 1st few years it was produced and in todays standard of HP its a glorified daily driver
emajnthis Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 That's actually pretty cool. Let's see where Nissan is going with this.Wonder what Honda has under the covers...? I hate not knowing insider information. 341586[/snapback] Honda is dumping their NSX to try and give birth to a new breed of super car. All i can say is it's about damn time, the NSX has been exactly the same (w/some minor changes to the appearance and rear suspension) since it was first conceived in the early 90's i believe 91. They're going to take the V10 that was developed for F1 racing and put it into a mid/rear platform car. But then again, Lexus/Toyota is doing the same thing... so we'll see how that competition goes. 341873[/snapback] I watched a special on that not too long ago, for the last year they are putting out a special edition with again minor tweaks. The drivers basically said its a great car during the 1st few years it was produced and in todays standard of HP its a glorified daily driver 341883[/snapback] That is without a doubt the complete truth, I live in a snooty area where super cars are pretty common (though i hardly consider an NSX a supercar) and three of my friends own NSX's. That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you.
yellowlightman Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 My only guess for Nissan releasing this 450Z is so that it doesn't conflict with skyline sales in 2007 (and vice versa). With the skyline being released globally and replacing the 350Z as Nissans top sports car, there has to be some distinction between the two to seperate them in the market place. 341595[/snapback] The funny thing is... The Z hasn't been Nissan's top sports car in a long time. In the late 80's when Japan was getting SR20DET powered S13's and the first GT-R's, we were stuck with the lame 280ZX which turned into the just-as-lame 300ZX. Supposedly the reason we never got SR20DET-powered S13's was because they outperformed the Z of the time, and Nissan couldn't have any other cars that out-performed the Z in America (a la GM and the Corvette). Then in the early 90's we had the release of the twin-turbo Supra and RX-7 and instead of the GT-R we get... the 300ZX? The 300ZX was an inferior car to the Mazda and Toyota efforts, whereas the GT-R would have actually been decent competition.
emajnthis Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 My only guess for Nissan releasing this 450Z is so that it doesn't conflict with skyline sales in 2007 (and vice versa). With the skyline being released globally and replacing the 350Z as Nissans top sports car, there has to be some distinction between the two to seperate them in the market place. 341595[/snapback] The funny thing is... The Z hasn't been Nissan's top sports car in a long time. In the late 80's when Japan was getting SR20DET powered S13's and the first GT-R's, we were stuck with the lame 280ZX which turned into the just-as-lame 300ZX. Supposedly the reason we never got SR20DET-powered S13's was because they outperformed the Z of the time, and Nissan couldn't have any other cars that out-performed the Z in America (a la GM and the Corvette). Then in the early 90's we had the release of the twin-turbo Supra and RX-7 and instead of the GT-R we get... the 300ZX? The 300ZX was an inferior car to the Mazda and Toyota efforts, whereas the GT-R would have actually been decent competition. 341907[/snapback] No trust me, i completely understand (I'm dying for the GT-R to come to America, the good news is my friend owns an R32 ) But Nissan America is a bunch of idiots, and I was just discussing the American Market place. I mean if we're going to go Japanese, then give me my twin turbo Legacy! And my R34 GT-R! Not to Mention the S15! sadly the latter two were discontinued for not meeting emissions
pfunk Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 That's actually pretty cool. Let's see where Nissan is going with this.Wonder what Honda has under the covers...? I hate not knowing insider information. 341586[/snapback] Honda is dumping their NSX to try and give birth to a new breed of super car. All i can say is it's about damn time, the NSX has been exactly the same (w/some minor changes to the appearance and rear suspension) since it was first conceived in the early 90's i believe 91. They're going to take the V10 that was developed for F1 racing and put it into a mid/rear platform car. But then again, Lexus/Toyota is doing the same thing... so we'll see how that competition goes. 341873[/snapback] I watched a special on that not too long ago, for the last year they are putting out a special edition with again minor tweaks. The drivers basically said its a great car during the 1st few years it was produced and in todays standard of HP its a glorified daily driver 341883[/snapback] That is without a doubt the complete truth, I live in a snooty area where super cars are pretty common (though i hardly consider an NSX a supercar) and three of my friends own NSX's. That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] should I tell bout the time I took a ride in a Delorian gotta be the worst car ever,,, got a lot of looks though
emajnthis Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 That's actually pretty cool. Let's see where Nissan is going with this.Wonder what Honda has under the covers...? I hate not knowing insider information. 341586[/snapback] Honda is dumping their NSX to try and give birth to a new breed of super car. All i can say is it's about damn time, the NSX has been exactly the same (w/some minor changes to the appearance and rear suspension) since it was first conceived in the early 90's i believe 91. They're going to take the V10 that was developed for F1 racing and put it into a mid/rear platform car. But then again, Lexus/Toyota is doing the same thing... so we'll see how that competition goes. 341873[/snapback] I watched a special on that not too long ago, for the last year they are putting out a special edition with again minor tweaks. The drivers basically said its a great car during the 1st few years it was produced and in todays standard of HP its a glorified daily driver 341883[/snapback] That is without a doubt the complete truth, I live in a snooty area where super cars are pretty common (though i hardly consider an NSX a supercar) and three of my friends own NSX's. That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] should I tell bout the time I took a ride in a Delorian gotta be the worst car ever,,, got a lot of looks though 341915[/snapback] Before I had children I had a 94 Supra Twin Turbo Red Manual. It got a lot of looks and damn that car could go like a bat outta hell in a straight line, but if you tried to take a corner at more than 25mph you soon found a ditch to be your new garage. Fortunately my child was born and i sold the car before i could be the one responsible for destroying it, but aside from the poor cornering it also has a syncro problem with the manual gear box. third and fourth were already going out when i sold it, but i found it just wasn't with the Supra, it was also with my Hard top MR2 Turbo (makeshift, purchased hardtop MR2 NA used, imported 3SGTE rear clip from Japan= Jspec GT MR2 ) the second and third in that car was almost completely shot by the time i got rid of it. I was going to replace or rebuild the transmission, but at that point, i just needed the money (story of my life).
glane21 Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 (edited) Then in the early 90's we had the release of the twin-turbo Supra and RX-7 and instead of the GT-R we get... the 300ZX? The 300ZX was an inferior car to the Mazda and Toyota efforts, whereas the GT-R would have actually been decent competition. I don't know of I agree with that. I have a 300zxTT that has been basically problem free. Whereas it's tough to find a 93-95 RX7 that isn't on it's second engine or in need of one. Sure there are after market fixes to mitigate that, but from the factory, the RX7 was a timebomb. Can't really comment on the Supra as I've never driven one, but I think they owe a lot of their market value to a certain movie. I like the looks of a kit on one but the dashboard design was terrible. Edited November 3, 2005 by glane21
yellowlightman Posted November 3, 2005 Posted November 3, 2005 I don't know of I agree with that. I have a 300zxTT that has been basically problem free. Whereas it's tough to find a 93-95 RX7 that isn't on it's second engine or in need of one. Sure there are after market fixes to mitigate that, but from the factory, the RX7 was a timebomb.Can't really comment on the Supra as I've never driven one, but I think they owe a lot of their market value to a certain movie. I like the looks of a kit on one but the dashboard design was terrible. 341954[/snapback] I was referring more to design, performance and handling, not reliability.
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Then in the early 90's we had the release of the twin-turbo Supra and RX-7 and instead of the GT-R we get... the 300ZX? The 300ZX was an inferior car to the Mazda and Toyota efforts, whereas the GT-R would have actually been decent competition. I don't know of I agree with that. I have a 300zxTT that has been basically problem free. Whereas it's tough to find a 93-95 RX7 that isn't on it's second engine or in need of one. Sure there are after market fixes to mitigate that, but from the factory, the RX7 was a timebomb. Can't really comment on the Supra as I've never driven one, but I think they owe a lot of their market value to a certain movie. I like the looks of a kit on one but the dashboard design was terrible. 341954[/snapback] That is completey true because i drove problem free 300zx TT's, but in all honesty that VG30DETT didn't compare to the 2JZGTE in stability or reliability. That's where Nissan should've been smart and brought over the RB motor, or at least the SR20DET, but of course like i said before Nissan USA is a bunch of idiots. The RX-7's motor had a design flaw which is why they blew up (which is also why the RX-8's are now side ported) but it's still a shame we only got them in the states for 2 years as compared to japan who only discontinued them recently. In my previous post, i owned a 94 Supra Twin Turbo, and i LOVED the dashboard layout. In fact, i wish ALL sports cars had that lay out. Not only does it feel like you're in the friggin cockpit of a fighter jet, but your passenger can't touch ANYTHING. They would literally have to reach around your arm to touch the radio, which for me is a big deal.
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Then in the early 90's we had the release of the twin-turbo Supra and RX-7 and instead of the GT-R we get... the 300ZX? The 300ZX was an inferior car to the Mazda and Toyota efforts, whereas the GT-R would have actually been decent competition. I don't know of I agree with that. I have a 300zxTT that has been basically problem free. Whereas it's tough to find a 93-95 RX7 that isn't on it's second engine or in need of one. Sure there are after market fixes to mitigate that, but from the factory, the RX7 was a timebomb. Can't really comment on the Supra as I've never driven one, but I think they owe a lot of their market value to a certain movie. I like the looks of a kit on one but the dashboard design was terrible. 341954[/snapback] That is completey true because i drove problem free 300zx TT's, but in all honesty that VG30DETT didn't compare to the 2JZGTE in stability or reliability. That's where Nissan should've been smart and brought over the RB motor, or at least the SR20DET, but of course like i said before Nissan USA is a bunch of idiots. The RX-7's motor had a design flaw which is why they blew up (which is also why the RX-8's are now side ported) but it's still a shame we only got them in the states for 2 years as compared to japan who only discontinued them recently. In my previous post, i owned a 94 Supra Twin Turbo, and i LOVED the dashboard layout. In fact, i wish ALL sports cars had that lay out. Not only does it feel like you're in the friggin cockpit of a fighter jet, but your passenger can't touch ANYTHING. They would literally have to reach around your arm to touch the radio, which for me is a big deal. 342159[/snapback] the wankel to me has allways been in need of a better design, thiers still a side load on the output shaft on the compression stroke,,,heres a true rotary Id love to have, pull up in the bay,,,,,what you runnin,,, LYCOMING 1500hp'shttp://adcache.boattraderonline.com/6/1/0/60859710.htm
Stamen0083 Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. Edited November 4, 2005 by Stamen0083
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand.
Agent ONE Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand. 342212[/snapback] Thats always been my impression of the NSX. However 0-60 in 3 to be a supercar? Wow, thats like 3 cars in the world. The Ferrari 360 is 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds, the Aston Martin DB9 is 5.4...
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand. 342212[/snapback] Thats always been my impression of the NSX. However 0-60 in 3 to be a supercar? Wow, thats like 3 cars in the world. The Ferrari 360 is 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds, the Aston Martin DB9 is 5.4... 342221[/snapback] Aston martins are over weight luxury cars, hell, my 96 GS vette ran 4.7-5.1 0-60 depending on the magazine, M3 is like 5.0 or 5.2 (from memory), A supercar should be 4.5 or faster and pull over a "G" on the skidpad
PC Valkyrie Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) 4 current cars which I consider to be "supercars" are: 1) Bugatti Veyron 16.4 2) Ferrari Enzo 3) Porsche Carrera GT 4) Mercedes SLR McLaren There may be others which are offerred only in Europe. Of those 4 cars listed above, the SLR has taken the place of the NSX as the most appropriate for "daily driving". Edit: I forgot the Ford GT and Saleen S7. Somehow, these 2 just don't leave the same feeling of "WOW" like the 4 listed above. Edited November 4, 2005 by PC Valkyrie
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand. 342212[/snapback] Thats always been my impression of the NSX. However 0-60 in 3 to be a supercar? Wow, thats like 3 cars in the world. The Ferrari 360 is 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds, the Aston Martin DB9 is 5.4... 342221[/snapback] Aston martins are over weight luxury cars, hell, my 96 GS vette ran 4.7-5.1 0-60 depending on the magazine, M3 is like 5.0 or 5.2 (from memory), A supercar should be 4.5 or faster and pull over a "G" on the skidpad 342245[/snapback] There are even less cars that pull over 1.0G in the skidpad than there are that go 0-60 in the 3 second range. And yeh 3 seconds is a little harsh, let's say high 4's 5's is pushing it. The new ZO6 has a 3.6 1/4 mile so does the Ford GT. Edited November 4, 2005 by emajnthis
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand. 342212[/snapback] Thats always been my impression of the NSX. However 0-60 in 3 to be a supercar? Wow, thats like 3 cars in the world. The Ferrari 360 is 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds, the Aston Martin DB9 is 5.4... 342221[/snapback] Aston martins are over weight luxury cars, hell, my 96 GS vette ran 4.7-5.1 0-60 depending on the magazine, M3 is like 5.0 or 5.2 (from memory), A supercar should be 4.5 or faster and pull over a "G" on the skidpad 342245[/snapback] There are even less cars that pull over 1.0G in the skidpad than there are that go 0-60 in the 3 second range. And yeh 3 seconds is a little harsh, let's say high 4's 5's is pushing it. The new ZO6 has a 3.6 1/4 mile so does the Ford GT. 342254[/snapback] exactly, when the "big 3" all have cars that can do it(mass production), it just pushes up the envelope a bit for the hand builders (ferrari, lambo, ect)
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) That car is exactly as you put it "a glorified daily driver", by no means do you feel you're driving a super car, especially considering it's price tag. The advantage in it being a daily driver and a Honda is the fact that you can train a half brained monkey to do maintenance for you. 341901[/snapback] The NSX is not a glorified daily driver. It's a supercar without the supercar quirks, such as tricky transmission, ridiculously expensive upkeep, etc... With supercars, you're paying more for the brand name than anything, though admittedly Ferrari engines are pretty impressive. 342206[/snapback] I beg to differ, The newest NSX out only has 290HP and 224lb torque!? That's horribly pitiful for an 89,000 dollar Car, and definitely not supercar status (supercars in the motorsports world, are cars that hit 200mph, or have a 0-60 in the 3 second range) the 350Z VQ35 puts out more hp than that, and it's a production car! What you're really paying for with the NSX is the hand built body, and the low maintenance (as advertised ALL over the Acura, Honda Japan websites). It's so pitiful that I believe it was either Road & Track or Car & Driver that did a comparison test of the NSX vs. S2000, and the S2000 BARELY lost in SOME categories. the NSX 0-60 was the same as the S2000 and the quarter mile was .1 second slower! Personally the only good reason anyone has for owning one is if they got it for a good price second hand. 342212[/snapback] Thats always been my impression of the NSX. However 0-60 in 3 to be a supercar? Wow, thats like 3 cars in the world. The Ferrari 360 is 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds, the Aston Martin DB9 is 5.4... 342221[/snapback] Aston martins are over weight luxury cars, hell, my 96 GS vette ran 4.7-5.1 0-60 depending on the magazine, M3 is like 5.0 or 5.2 (from memory), A supercar should be 4.5 or faster and pull over a "G" on the skidpad 342245[/snapback] There are even less cars that pull over 1.0G in the skidpad than there are that go 0-60 in the 3 second range. And yeh 3 seconds is a little harsh, let's say high 4's 5's is pushing it. The new ZO6 has a 3.6 1/4 mile so does the Ford GT. 342254[/snapback] exactly, when the "big 3" all have cars that can do it(mass production), it just pushes up the envelope a bit for the hand builders (ferrari, lambo, ect) 342261[/snapback] Right on, that's why i'm very hopeful for some of the newer cars that are coming out (like the skyline, though the skyline never comes oob with great times, they've been pumped up to over 1300hp). But in all fairness, lambo has never really built "super cars" they have built eye candy cars to make up for the fact that they're not ferrari's. Which brings me to the next point. Now that Lamborghini is creating cars that are a little more practical (VW's influence, you can actually use the rear view mirror!), is it actually worth buying one? Or would you just save some extra dough and go for the Ferrari? Also a lot of the European cars don't put an emphasis on 0-60 because they're aiming most of their vehicles for the track, not the drag strip. So they create one super car (Enzo, carerra GT) to prove that if they wanted to, they could. Edited November 4, 2005 by emajnthis
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 I like to use 0-60 as a baseline since most of thiese cars will never see a track allthough I have been known to pull a 4 wheel slide on a freeway off ramp, which reminds me of the worst mistake I ever made in a car,,,,letting off the gas , definatlly agree about lambo's, but porche is going in the wrong direction IMO starting with the boxster (ya ever feel the wheel hop in that car?)
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 I like to use 0-60 as a baseline since most of thiese cars will never see a track allthough I have been known to pull a 4 wheel slide on a freeway off ramp, which reminds me of the worst mistake I ever made in a car,,,,letting off the gas , definatlly agree about lambo's, but porche is going in the wrong direction IMO starting with the boxster (ya ever feel the wheel hop in that car?) 342274[/snapback] Well, Porsche has something with the Cayman... but they screwed it up (again, VW influence). After realizing how light and incredibly rigid the Cayman was, they should've just made it the next 911. Put the most powerful motor they have and jam it in there. That's why every reviewer of the Cayman says it's the best porsche ever because of the potential (someone's going to take their GT3 motor and stick it in there). But i have to agree w/you on Porsche and ANY VW company for that matter (VW,Audi,Bentley,Lambo,Porsche,I know there's like 3 more).
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks
PC Valkyrie Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Well, Porsche has something with the Cayman... but they screwed it up (again, VW influence). After realizing how light and incredibly rigid the Cayman was, they should've just made it the next 911. Put the most powerful motor they have and jam it in there. That's why every reviewer of the Cayman says it's the best porsche ever because of the potential (someone's going to take their GT3 motor and stick it in there). But i have to agree w/you on Porsche and ANY VW company for that matter (VW,Audi,Bentley,Lambo,Porsche,I know there's like 3 more). It is well known/suspected that Porsche deliberately did not put the most poweful engine into the Cayman S because they have to protect their icon, 911. The 911 has such a strong historical and iconic status that Porsche had to protect their loyal 911 customers. They also have to justify the price premium for a 911. Therefore, the Cayman S has to be slower (in a straight line) than the 911. Being a mid-engine hardtop, the Cayman naturally has the best handling characteristics (especially compared to a rear engined 911 or any front engine sports car). I wouldn't say that Porsche is heading in the wrong direction. The new 997 Porsche 911 has been very well received/rated. The redesigned Boxter and new Cayman are generating lots of interest and potential sales. Sure, the Cayenne was a departure for Porsche, but it remains their highest selling vehicle (last time I checked) contributing to their profits.
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 (edited) Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! But as my avatar boasts, I can't wait until Saleen finishes his Twin Turbo AND Twin Intercooled S7 (it was just twin turbo before), i'm excited to see those numbers. Edited November 4, 2005 by emajnthis
pfunk Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from
emajnthis Posted November 4, 2005 Posted November 4, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from 342297[/snapback] It's not the size of the brake that is genius, it's the technology incorporated. The Brake caliper is individual pieces and not one block. The advantage is, the fronter parts of the caliper that take most of the ware can be replaced individually saving the owner money. Also because they're individual blocks (one for each pot, so six in the front four in the rear) they cool much quicker than a single block, in conjunction with the huge brake vent, means more consistent braking on a track and in general.
emajnthis Posted November 5, 2005 Posted November 5, 2005 Also, there are quite a number of cars (that aren't considered "Super Cars") that run 3 secs. the 911 S is one.
pfunk Posted November 5, 2005 Posted November 5, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from 342297[/snapback] It's not the size of the brake that is genius, it's the technology incorporated. The Brake caliper is individual pieces and not one block. The advantage is, the fronter parts of the caliper that take most of the ware can be replaced individually saving the owner money. Also because they're individual blocks (one for each pot, so six in the front four in the rear) they cool much quicker than a single block, in conjunction with the huge brake vent, means more consistent braking on a track and in general. 342326[/snapback] yeah, I know, but the preasure required to stop the rotaing mass is a lot less per inch. Ive been running a ceramic blend for years now, The only thing that gets the most heat is the rotor, Ive experimanted with a heavy truck, and cast rotors will get ate by ceramics. As far as the calipers go, any late model vette has brembo style brakes and those are going on my super truck
emajnthis Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from 342297[/snapback] It's not the size of the brake that is genius, it's the technology incorporated. The Brake caliper is individual pieces and not one block. The advantage is, the fronter parts of the caliper that take most of the ware can be replaced individually saving the owner money. Also because they're individual blocks (one for each pot, so six in the front four in the rear) they cool much quicker than a single block, in conjunction with the huge brake vent, means more consistent braking on a track and in general. 342326[/snapback] yeah, I know, but the preasure required to stop the rotaing mass is a lot less per inch. Ive been running a ceramic blend for years now, The only thing that gets the most heat is the rotor, Ive experimanted with a heavy truck, and cast rotors will get ate by ceramics. As far as the calipers go, any late model vette has brembo style brakes and those are going on my super truck 342542[/snapback] I had been meaning to edit my last post but internet was out. What i meant to say was, the caliper is one piece (nothing changed) aluminum (not sure if it's Brembo, but high chance of it being so) and the brake pads are individual (much like the ones found on certain airplanes) so there are 20 total pads manning the brakes (6x2 front 4x2 rear). They say it helps braking but i don't know hot true it is, but i do know that it is more efficient for maintenance. The actual production car numbers for the ZO6 aren't as good as the proto test mule. 0-60 in 4.1 and 1/4 mile in 12.1? i know the quatermile was somewhere in the low 12's . Not bad numbers, but it's disappointing how different it was from original mule numbers.
pfunk Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from 342297[/snapback] It's not the size of the brake that is genius, it's the technology incorporated. The Brake caliper is individual pieces and not one block. The advantage is, the fronter parts of the caliper that take most of the ware can be replaced individually saving the owner money. Also because they're individual blocks (one for each pot, so six in the front four in the rear) they cool much quicker than a single block, in conjunction with the huge brake vent, means more consistent braking on a track and in general. 342326[/snapback] yeah, I know, but the preasure required to stop the rotaing mass is a lot less per inch. Ive been running a ceramic blend for years now, The only thing that gets the most heat is the rotor, Ive experimanted with a heavy truck, and cast rotors will get ate by ceramics. As far as the calipers go, any late model vette has brembo style brakes and those are going on my super truck 342542[/snapback] I had been meaning to edit my last post but internet was out. What i meant to say was, the caliper is one piece (nothing changed) aluminum (not sure if it's Brembo, but high chance of it being so) and the brake pads are individual (much like the ones found on certain airplanes) so there are 20 total pads manning the brakes (6x2 front 4x2 rear). They say it helps braking but i don't know hot true it is, but i do know that it is more efficient for maintenance. The actual production car numbers for the ZO6 aren't as good as the proto test mule. 0-60 in 4.1 and 1/4 mile in 12.1? i know the quatermile was somewhere in the low 12's . Not bad numbers, but it's disappointing how different it was from original mule numbers. 342811[/snapback] all in the tires, they use shitty ones from the factory, I had twin cars with a guy (96 LT4 vette convertibles) from the posted numbers they were running 13.5 from the factory ojn goodyears (scary garbage), he ran a 12.89 with G force BF's on his 1st pass and got kicked off the track (no cage in a convert under 14 seconds) with cheaters, thise GS's are capable of 12.50's with slight tuning
emajnthis Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 Im really getting an itch to drive the new Z06,,,,,no more home improvements, Im going to take my midlife crissis now thanks 342290[/snapback] Like i said before, I was always a rabid Hater of the Vette (post 60's) Until this years ZO6. And the only thing i hate about it is a debateable matter of opinion. The thing i love is whoever designed the brakes, they're a genius! 342294[/snapback] pretty sure they were done by brembo, at least for the Z, I had the upgraded brakes on my car and loved them, 13" rotors up front, 12's in back, cept rotors and ceramic pads were exspensive. Ive allways liked the vette cept the C5 and C3, good platform to build from 342297[/snapback] It's not the size of the brake that is genius, it's the technology incorporated. The Brake caliper is individual pieces and not one block. The advantage is, the fronter parts of the caliper that take most of the ware can be replaced individually saving the owner money. Also because they're individual blocks (one for each pot, so six in the front four in the rear) they cool much quicker than a single block, in conjunction with the huge brake vent, means more consistent braking on a track and in general. 342326[/snapback] yeah, I know, but the preasure required to stop the rotaing mass is a lot less per inch. Ive been running a ceramic blend for years now, The only thing that gets the most heat is the rotor, Ive experimanted with a heavy truck, and cast rotors will get ate by ceramics. As far as the calipers go, any late model vette has brembo style brakes and those are going on my super truck 342542[/snapback] I had been meaning to edit my last post but internet was out. What i meant to say was, the caliper is one piece (nothing changed) aluminum (not sure if it's Brembo, but high chance of it being so) and the brake pads are individual (much like the ones found on certain airplanes) so there are 20 total pads manning the brakes (6x2 front 4x2 rear). They say it helps braking but i don't know hot true it is, but i do know that it is more efficient for maintenance. The actual production car numbers for the ZO6 aren't as good as the proto test mule. 0-60 in 4.1 and 1/4 mile in 12.1? i know the quatermile was somewhere in the low 12's . Not bad numbers, but it's disappointing how different it was from original mule numbers. 342811[/snapback] all in the tires, they use shitty ones from the factory, I had twin cars with a guy (96 LT4 vette convertibles) from the posted numbers they were running 13.5 from the factory ojn goodyears (scary garbage), he ran a 12.89 with G force BF's on his 1st pass and got kicked off the track (no cage in a convert under 14 seconds) with cheaters, thise GS's are capable of 12.50's with slight tuning 342912[/snapback] I know that anyone with a brain and knowledge of all the factors that go into making a car faster will understand to put sticky's on it. But the average fat pocketed retard who's going to pick up the ZO6 and drive it like a fool on the road will more than likely be discouraged by the difference.... or maybe that's a good thing!?
pfunk Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 oh, as far as brake pads go, you ever notice high quality pads have a slit cut in them, it helps braking like sipes in a tire for winter time
emajnthis Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) Did you notice that we're the only ones contributing to this thread? yeah, the ZO6 is an amazing car, but one of many that have come (and are coming) out this year. I can't wait until 2007 when the Skyline is released, and then some of Mazda's project cars aren't looking so bad either (Mazda 6Speed) though in comparison to the EVO and the up EVO X (the IX is coming but the X will be a complete redesign not just an upgrade) it makes the mazda look like a pinto when it comes to AWD systems and HP hookup. It will be really interesting to just see all of this on the track, because that's where all the hype really comes from. Edited November 7, 2005 by emajnthis
Agent ONE Posted November 7, 2005 Posted November 7, 2005 You guys are just so happy with your 'back-&-forth' we don't want to interupt. So to let you guys know I cancled my name from the 07 M3 waiting list, and put my name on the 06 Lotus Elise wating list... What do you guys think? You like the car? http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0408_first_lotus/ Taking into account options and dealer markups, I will be paying 60-70k for this car.
Recommended Posts