areaseven Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 Didn't some guy buy up the remaining inventory/NOS parts stock from DMC? AFAIK, he's using it to restore DeLoreans, and even build "new" ones? Yes, this is the company we're talking about. The same company that has surplus DeLorean parts is attempting to use the Solstice as their own.
QuinJester Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Its heavy. And to this point weak. Also ugly IMO. Sounds like it's got a LOT in common with the Delorean, actually. . Don't forget that the original Delorean was so heavy and so underpowered that it didn't even have a speedometer that could go up to the 88 miles per hour shown in the Back to the Future movies that made it famous. Ugly is subjective, of course, and while I personally love the look of the Delorean (again, BTTF to blame for that), it's not exactly elegant with its rigid, 80's-tastic straight lines, awkward boxy front, and big solid wheel caps. The Solstice body design is decidedly more "modern", but loses a lot of the flair of that ugly, boxy Delorean look that makes it so distinct. Personally, if I were to pick something out as being the biggest fault it would be the lack of gull wing doors due to the convertible design. That's REALLY a shame. What's a Delorean without gull wing doors?
David Hingtgen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I thought the lack of 88mph speedo was due to "American laws from the early 80's". They weren't allowed to have one that showed beyond 85.
QuinJester Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I thought the lack of 88mph speedo was due to "American laws from the early 80's". They weren't allowed to have one that showed beyond 85. Doesn't change the fact that the DMC-12 had a crust-of-the-earth slowness of nearly 11 seconds to 60 mph, which was barely faster than a similar era Honda Civic. On top of that, it weighed about 2700 pounds thanks to all that stainless steel, making the thing a cinderblock on wheels. All those critiques aside, I can't imagine a "new" DMC doing all that well. People want a Delorean because it's a Delorean, gull wings and pokey performance and all. The DMC badge wont mean much if it isn't attached to something that went back through time.
Beltane70 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I had no idea that DeLoreans were that slow! Even my old 92 Sentra could accelerate faster than them if what you say is true. Edited October 13, 2009 by Beltane70
areaseven Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 Why is it that concept sketches don't always translate well to prototypes or actual production units? Case in point: this 2010 Zagato Perana Z-One. The sketch looks beautiful, but the car itself looks bland in comparison. 2010 Zagato Perana Z-One
David Hingtgen Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 It looks "lessened" compared to the sketch. Every curve is more subtle, every arch flattened, every projection pulled in. Just a little, but everywhere, and it adds up to blandness. It's like if you took something very carefully and sharply ground with crisp edges, then sand blasted it for a while. The overall shape would be identical, but it'd be all smoothed over.
Hiriyu Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) Why is it that concept sketches don't always translate well to prototypes or actual production units? Case in point: this 2010 Zagato Perana Z-One. The sketch looks beautiful, but the car itself looks bland in comparison. There are limitations in production tool design wrt draft and compound curves which cannot be easily translated from drawing to tool; also, sketches can imply shapes and proportions which are not actually present. Just look at some of the Macross perspective lineart for examples of this. Also, a design artist has a lot more leeway in terms of glossing over details that engineers cannot - window and door seals, functional door handles, mirrors, etc. ** Edit: The biggest difference in the example provided is the cove in the front bodywork, around the wheelwells (though there are a lot of other details like the mounting of the mirros, rear haunches/wheelarches, etc, etc). Notice that on the "production" model the front fenders and valance appear to be one piece. If you used the more heavily coved design from the sketch, I'm guessing that you would have a very loosey-goosey non-rigid body panel there. Notice the flattened "lip" around the wheelarch? That kind of feature gives a panel much higher strength as a unit. I don't know what the body is made of, or if this is a unibody design in the first place, but manufacturers generally don't want to sell a car with body panels that flap around as the car moves through the wind. Edited October 14, 2009 by Hiriyu
Agent ONE Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Thats your opinion, and your allowed to it. Yes, its heavier than a Miata. The Solstice/Sky/Opel GT also offered a 260 horse 2.0 liter turbo that more than makes up for that weight difference to the Miata (its target competitor). There also is a factory add-on to boost the engine to over 300 horse packeage as well. It offered a viable option to those who dont want to cough up $40k-plus for a sporty roadster. By the way, the Miata has been a very successful roadster and it is front engine as well. Not everyone can (or wants to) buy a Lotus Elise/Exige or a Porsche Boxster/Cayman. A new Delorean product doesnt have to be along the same lines as the old ones. Honestly, that might make it more apt to be a success. As far as the original Delorean being an entry level super-car, did you loose your mind? Even in the low powered days of the early eighties, that weak 130 horsepower v-6 certainly made it a disqualifier. Change of inertia is more important than power to weight ratio. That is why the pontiac is terrible and will never be touched by track people. Such was not the case for the original Delorean. Light = brake later, accelerate sooner. I think where the engine is placed is key also. Rear mount is just a more performance stance and better rake of the entire car. I'd rather the Delorean be based on the Mr2 than the Pontiac.
Whamhammer Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Change of inertia is more important than power to weight ratio. That is why the pontiac is terrible and will never be touched by track people. Such was not the case for the original Delorean. Light = brake later, accelerate sooner. I think where the engine is placed is key also. Rear mount is just a more performance stance and better rake of the entire car. I'd rather the Delorean be based on the Mr2 than the Pontiac. The Solstice wasn't designed for the "track" car segment. Its not a "super-car".Its segemented between the Miata and the Z-4. Its a roadster thats meant to be "affordable" and be driven on a daily basis. "Track" people only account for a small percentage of a target market. True, the Solstice GXP weighs about 3,000 pounds and the Miata weighs about 2,500 pounds, the Z-4 with the 300 horse turbo-six is in the ballpark of 3400 pounds also would you bash the Z-4 more than the Solstice? There are Ferraris, which are "supercars" that are more than 4,000 pounds and are successful. To suggest the original Delorian in context to being a "super-car" or a "track" car is absurdity. Without modifying the engines well in excess of its original capabilities the Delorian wouldve had to have never let off of acceleration to keep with other "super-cars" which is unrealistic to expect out a driver or vehicle. And Jaguar prooved a long time ago that you can put massive brakes on a car to make it stop later in a turn, even on a heavier car, and that will help win championships. As far as "mid" or "rear" engine set-ups go, the new Corvette Grand Sport has a 51 front 49 rear weight bias and is front engine (given , the transmission is mounted in the back) and mostpeople would say that a 50/50 bias is the ideal setup, that puts the 'Vette with a decent bias without a mid or rear setup. Theres more than one way to skin a cat, or a well balanced good handling car.
Agent ONE Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 The Solstice wasn't designed for the "track" car segment. Its not a "super-car".Its segemented between the Miata and the Z-4. Its a roadster thats meant to be "affordable" and be driven on a daily basis. "Track" people only account for a small percentage of a target market. True, the Solstice GXP weighs about 3,000 pounds and the Miata weighs about 2,500 pounds, the Z-4 with the 300 horse turbo-six is in the ballpark of 3400 pounds also would you bash the Z-4 more than the Solstice? There are Ferraris, which are "supercars" that are more than 4,000 pounds and are successful. To suggest the original Delorian in context to being a "super-car" or a "track" car is absurdity. Without modifying the engines well in excess of its original capabilities the Delorian wouldve had to have never let off of acceleration to keep with other "super-cars" which is unrealistic to expect out a driver or vehicle. And Jaguar prooved a long time ago that you can put massive brakes on a car to make it stop later in a turn, even on a heavier car, and that will help win championships. As far as "mid" or "rear" engine set-ups go, the new Corvette Grand Sport has a 51 front 49 rear weight bias and is front engine (given , the transmission is mounted in the back) and mostpeople would say that a 50/50 bias is the ideal setup, that puts the 'Vette with a decent bias without a mid or rear setup. Theres more than one way to skin a cat, or a well balanced good handling car. Ok, maybe I remember the Delorean to be better than it was, but at least it was exotic. It was something special. I repainted Pontiac is NOT special at all. You also can't dismiss inertia just from one example. Thats physics. It is more efficient to change the direction of less mass as opposed to more given the potential contact of rubber to weigh ratio. This is why the Lotus can evade the tracking system of an Apache attack helicopter and no other car can do this. It can just turn faster.
Vifam7 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Ok, maybe I remember the Delorean to be better than it was, but at least it was exotic. It was something special. The gull-wing doors and Giugiaro styling gives the impression of something special. Unfortunately, everything else didn't exactly follow suit. It's perhaps more of an 80's cultural icon thanks to the Back to the Future movies and John DeLorean's escapades. Time Magazine listed it as one of 50 Worst Cars of All Time. I suppose that makes it pretty special. Edited October 15, 2009 by Vifam7
Whamhammer Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Ok, maybe I remember the Delorean to be better than it was, but at least it was exotic. It was something special. I repainted Pontiac is NOT special at all. You also can't dismiss inertia just from one example. Thats physics. It is more efficient to change the direction of less mass as opposed to more given the potential contact of rubber to weigh ratio. This is why the Lotus can evade the tracking system of an Apache attack helicopter and no other car can do this. It can just turn faster. I never said less weight overcomes inertia easier, its one way to make performance, but not the only way. I never said the Solstice was a "Super-car" its never been suggested that way, I said it was a great platform. I'm not looking at the Solstice as a race car, but as a daily driver roadster that the masses can afford and enjoy. If I wanted something closer to a "race-car" I'd buy a Corvette Grand Sport or Porsche Boxter/Cayman S, pay $60k for it and do a few tweaks . Thats not affordable, nor is anything with a Lotus badge (even though they are a great performance value, giving up much to do with comfort), even walking in at what $45k? Affordable in my book is thinking to myself, "For about the same money, I can buy a loaded Camry V-6." Where are you getting your info on the Lotus evading Apahces? Number one, why would someone want to do that was this a one off?, number two do that enough and no matter how quickly you can turn , youre taking a dirtnap FFAR shrapnel kills in an area of effect.
miles316 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) I never said less weight overcomes inertia easier, its one way to make performance, but not the only way. I never said the Solstice was a "Super-car" its never been suggested that way, I said it was a great platform. I'm not looking at the Solstice as a race car, but as a daily driver roadster that the masses can afford and enjoy. If I wanted something closer to a "race-car" I'd buy a Corvette Grand Sport or Porsche Boxter/Cayman S, pay $60k for it and do a few tweaks . Thats not affordable, nor is anything with a Lotus badge (even though they are a great performance value, giving up much to do with comfort), even walking in at what $45k? Affordable in my book is thinking to myself, "For about the same money, I can buy a loaded Camry V-6." Where are you getting your info on the Lotus evading Apahces? Number one, why would someone want to do that was this a one off?, number two do that enough and no matter how quickly you can turn , youre taking a dirtnap FFAR shrapnel kills in an area of effect. "Top gear" on the BBC it was a challenge they were given. Edited October 15, 2009 by miles316
Vifam7 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 "Top gear" on the BBC it was a challenge they were given. Top Gear is great show but that "challenge" (it was more like horseplay) was pretty much BS. A radar lock wasn't really needed to kill that Lotus Exige.
Whamhammer Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Top Gear is great show but that "challenge" (it was more like horseplay) was pretty much BS. A radar lock wasn't really needed to kill that Lotus Exige. Yeah, sometimes those guys get a little silly in thier challenges. Like the fullsize r.c. car for instance. I'd take that "challenge" with a grain of salt. Lotus tend to be unarmoured vehicles and it would make more sence to use Folding Fin Aerial Rockets of a Hellfire on them , for obvious reasons.
miles316 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The challenge was to avoid being targeted by the apache not to survive a missile strike. I don't mean to split hairs.
Agent ONE Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The DeLorean Motor corporation should license THIS design instead of screwing around with rebranding a lame-mobile. http://jalopnik.com/5382409/supasse-v-supe...-heads-to-toyko
areaseven Posted October 16, 2009 Author Posted October 16, 2009 The DeLorean Motor corporation should license THIS design instead of screwing around with rebranding a lame-mobile. Nah, it still wouldn't be a DeLorean. A real DeLorean has to be made of stainless steel, accelerate like a moped, handle like a garbage truck and be completely uninteresting without an additional ton of movie props.
Agent ONE Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Nah, it still wouldn't be a DeLorean. A real DeLorean has to be made of stainless steel, accelerate like a moped, handle like a garbage truck and be completely uninteresting without an additional ton of movie props. LOL. Well... It DOES have Gullwing doors.
Whamhammer Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The challenge was to avoid being targeted by the apache not to survive a missile strike. I don't mean to split hairs. I understand that, but Ive seen Top Gear and love the show,but I know sometimes they get a little bit silly on thier "fluff-pieces".
Whamhammer Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The DeLorean Motor corporation should license THIS design instead of screwing around with rebranding a lame-mobile. http://jalopnik.com/5382409/supasse-v-supe...-heads-to-toyko Did a SmartCar and a Lotus Exige have sex and spew that thing out?
chen Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 I like it, sure the price is ridiculous but it probably costs Toyota more to make it than it's selling. Would I pick it over a Ferrari or Lambo, probably not but people who can afford this probably have one of each and ten more cars sitting in their garage. As for styling I love it, for so long Japaneses car companies would be accused of just copying someone else's stying, which in fact hasn't been the case in years, so I'm glad that this car has a uniquely Japanese look to it, the same as the GT-R. Now all supercars from Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus etc. are starting to look alike with the differences of how they style their vents and their headlights. So bravo Toyota, if I had the money I'd buy one and for sure you know it'll be a hell of a lot more reliable than a Ferrari or Lambo.
areaseven Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 Ugly and not worth it. Can't be worse than the Panamera, can it?
Agent ONE Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Can't be worse than the Panamera, can it? No man, the Panamera is worse than the pontiac Aztek IMO. Worst car in the last 15 years.
areaseven Posted October 23, 2009 Author Posted October 23, 2009 Here's something A1 would like: a Lotus Exige painted in matte black. Weighing at 2,039 lbs., the Exige Scura is powered by a supercharged 1.8 liter inline 4 that generates 257 bhp. Acceleration from 0-60 is 4.1 seconds with a top speed of 152 mph. Only 35 of these will be made at a starting price of £45,000 in the UK and € 50,000 in Europe. 2010 Lotus Exige Scura
Agent ONE Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 I'd scrape that stupid wing off, but yeah. Best car in the world. That thing will be SO fun to drive. When I do finally trade my Lotus in, it will only be for another Lotus. I am SO happy when I drive that thing. I can make any turn at any intersection without slowing down at all.
areaseven Posted October 24, 2009 Author Posted October 24, 2009 Want to save gas? Apparently, Mythbusters found the solution using the golf ball theory. Mythbusters: Fuel Efficiency Test
miles316 Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) Can any one explain or give a definition of a hand built engine for a car or truck? I have been curious about the criteria of a Handbuilt engine. Edited October 24, 2009 by miles316
myk Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Well...there's a block on a stand and...people put parts on it until it's done. Sometimes they engrave their name on it, like at Ford/SVT and GM. I keep thinking there's more to your question than I can understand...
miles316 Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Well...there's a block on a stand and...people put parts on it until it's done. Sometimes they engrave their name on it, like at Ford/SVT and GM. I keep thinking there's more to your question than I can understand... What is the power, quality, reliability of a Hand built compared to a traditional factory built engine? I have been thinking about that question for a while. I know placing every part manually with out the use of power tools allows tighter tolerances I guess. Besides the fact that Hand built engines are synonymous with supper cars, luxury cars and other ridiculously expensive automobile compared to factory built cars that are considerably less expensive. I know that engines on cars like Ferrari's and other supper cars are extremely complex and have to be put to assembled by hand because they have More than eight cylinders and are built in ridiculously small batches.
Recommended Posts