SchizophrenicMC Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Screw Motor Trend. They're just using kits that are available, because none of that stuff is novel. If you wanted a Camaro with popup headlights, why didn't you buy a Firebird? How uncreative is an LS swap anyway? This is not a car that needs that much power. Maybe I'm a bit of a purist, but I intend to keep my car true to its roots. A forced-induction 4-cylinder making moderate amounts of power, driving a lightweight, balanced car, is a lot more fun for me than a ton and a half of power from a heavy, low-revving pushrod box slung all the way over the front of the car. The whole safety situation is why the LR Defender has been out of America for 20 years. It has space for emissions-compliant engines, and there's enough demand to shoehorn the 4.4l V8 into it for US sale. But it's not made to our ridiculous safety standards, so no sale. What I find funny about the import exemptions is, the cars that are exempt are so old, they're the dirtiest, most-unsafe vehicles on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Henrik Fisker and Galpin Auto Sports take a Ford Mustang GT and go crazy with it. The Rocket has its sheetmetal body replaced with carbon fiber and its V8 engine is supercharged to 725 bhp. Expect this limited edition Mustang to cost a little over US$100,000. How much is the Hellcat? $42K ish? That is a big leap. Heck, even a Z06 is still under $80K. All that being said I would still love to own this. Not to sound like an annoying armchair critic here, but there are a few things about this ROCKET I would change aesthetically. Minor tweaks mostly, exercising the decal delete option springs to mind. And to recap further, that Ferrari reminds me of a Lancia. Eric Clapton's Ferrari is super nice as well, but I think a one off car going to a guy like that devalues the entire existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I thought the Hellcat was in the $60K theoretical, $70K in most likely configurations ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 The Challenger Hellcat starts at $59,995, but you're mostly going to see them in the low 70s, depending on configuration. That's not bad for the most powerful production muscle car ever, but it's still a pretty penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 My bad, I did a quick search and that was the lowest number I found. I don't think $60k is much these days though, to step into a 707hp turnkey car. The standard 5.7L engine is more than enough for me, pushing around a challenger. The delivery date hasn't been verified on the Hellcat yet, there is still some waffling on which model/colour combination would be best, as well as transmission option considerations. Among my gifts received from family this year, I got a nice SRT-shirt with the hellcat logo incorporated, and a slick SRT pen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 ... And to recap further, that Ferrari reminds me of a Lancia. Eric Clapton's Ferrari is super nice as well, but I think a one off car going to a guy like that devalues the entire existence. Yes total Lancia. Couldn't place where I had seen that design. And yes, bespoke cars are things that tuners do, not a manufacturer. Total dilution of the brand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ferraris are all made to order anyway, I guess I just don't see the big deal in the jump to custom body work on top of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 You guys have any thoughts on this? Other than underpowered, it has a power to weight close to a 911S for about half the price, and I think its beautiful. Alfa Romeo 4C https://4c.alfaromeo.com Reminds me of my Lotus, but a bit more of a real car and less of a race car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I love the 4C. It's a return to light weight over extreme power. I think the whole thing is south of 2,000lbs. But it still has carpet and a radio. (And A/C for the US market) And the styling is just gorgeous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I love the 4C. It's a return to light weight over extreme power. I think the whole thing is south of 2,000lbs. But it still has carpet and a radio. (And A/C for the US market) And the styling is just gorgeous. I spoke with a Lotus driver and they said its a similar experience. From a chassis standpoint, the mono-tub design is almost the same, louts using aluminum, and Alfa using carbon fiber. I like that its priced to be a daily driver also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I can't comment on the ride style, having never been exposed to any variety of pure sports cars beyond the corvette. The styling to me is reminiscent of a rat. All I can see is a crouched rodent baring teeth. Nice colour though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 The 4C is gorgeous and looks to be a lot of fun, since you already had an elise it seems like you will be right at home. A few strange things I heard about the car is flappy paddle transmission only and that you can't open the trunk to put any luggage in. Here's a fun video you have probably already seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron5864 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 My bad, I did a quick search and that was the lowest number I found. I don't think $60k is much these days though, to step into a 707hp turnkey car. The standard 5.7L engine is more than enough for me, pushing around a challenger. The delivery date hasn't been verified on the Hellcat yet, there is still some waffling on which model/colour combination would be best, as well as transmission option considerations. Among my gifts received from family this year, I got a nice SRT-shirt with the hellcat logo incorporated, and a slick SRT pen. Challenger R/T owner here. The standard 5.7L engine is ok at moving the car around. The car weighs 4080 lbs which is a lot of mass, even for 375hp and 410 ft-lb of torque. I don't race it so it is a totally acceptable motor. I have a Mazdaspeed3 as a daily driver and it feels much more punchier than the Challenger. The Challenger (6-speed manual) just cannot accelerate as fast at highway speed, like a 60mph-80mph burst for a quick pass, as the Mazda. If I were to buy the Challenger today, I probably would have gotten the R/T Scat Pack with the 6.4L. It's 110hp more for not too terrible of a financial hit, not SRT money. Just my 2 cents.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Funny, I was just looking up the scat pack options after a facebook post grabbed my attention. I recently weighed my RAM fueled with yours truly on board, and it sat about 5700lbs. It is the newer VVT engine and claims 395 hp. This is more than enough for me and the truck really accelerates nicely to pass and to enter the highway from on ramps. The draw back is that the sticker was nearly hellcat territory, but ultimately I have a LOT of vehicle for my money and the value is in the interior space plus ability to haul within reason. The last challenger I was in was in 2008, and it was gutsy enough to keep me in my seat during a launch. That is about as technical as a test drive can get. A totally different sensation in my 4x4, where you dont feel the kick the same way. I'm guessing the differential gearing difference is what is to blame for the gulf between your mopar and your mazda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Final drive makes a lot of difference. My Pathfinder out-accelerated my first Grand Cherokee, despite being down 50hp, 70tq, and weighing some 500lbs more. The reason: The 6-cylinder Grand Cherokee had 3.55 gears, whereas the Pathfinder had 4.36 gears. Of course that also meant the Pathy really could not get past the 100mph mark the speedo stopped at, whereas the Jeep would eventually hit a governor at 125. Of course, my V8 Grand easily out-accelerates the Pathfinder. And my 240SX. And my 5.9 Limited was even faster than that, and it was only running on 7 cylinders. But really, I'm kinda burned out on the whole horsepower thing. I want light weight again. We've proven we can make tons and tons of reliable, efficient power. The Horsepower War is over. We won. So can we start shedding pounds? I mean, for as cool as 707hp is in a $60,000 production pony car, there's no getting around the Challenger weighing more than my Grand Cherokee. (Or the current Grand Cherokee weighing twice my 240SX) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron5864 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 My Challenger has the 3.92 rear end over the standard 3.73. That was my "must have" requirement. But Dodge does have the Scat Pack 1 that remaps the engine controller along with cold air intake and a lower restriction exhaust resulting in 395hp and 430 ft-lb of torque without messing up the warranty or CARB emissions. Like Schizophrenic said, I do prefer lower weight. The Mazdaspeed3 weights 3160 lbs. and feels light on its feet (or tires). From accelerating, stopping, cornering, and sudden accident avoidance, this car does it without strain. But its ride is a little more jarring than what most people will tolerate. I do miss the days when a sport compact weights 2500-2600 lbs. If my turbo 2.3L went inside an Acura Integra. Man, that would be over-the-top awesome. But I do love a big grand touring size American coupe. Eats miles with smiles. However, the 707 horsepower Hellcat Challenger/Charger might be the last car the owner drives if he/she is not careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelglue Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 But really, I'm kinda burned out on the whole horsepower thing. I want light weight again. We've proven we can make tons and tons of reliable, efficient power. The Horsepower War is over. We won. So can we start shedding pounds? I mean, for as cool as 707hp is in a $60,000 production pony car, there's no getting around the Challenger weighing more than my Grand Cherokee. (Or the current Grand Cherokee weighing twice my 240SX) I guess I'm on the other side of that camp. I'd rather be safe, living in an area where winter conditions limit road safety. Throw in driver awareness, overall competency, and carelessness; you have a higher chance of getting bumped around on our winter roads. Yesterday, I witnessed a woman driving white knuckled on two wheels around a corner in a Honda Fit. This was all very visible to me from my truck as her trajectory took her past me through her turning arc, where I was at a red light. If that road was icy I am glad my vehicle (either) would have held up to the impact. My wife recently lost control going down a hill towards the entrance of where she works. She hit the rear of one car, and the front of the other T-bone fashion while they were stopped at a red light as well. This was in the 2010 WK, which didn't launch airbags and the anti-lock brakes didn't do a damn thing to help her stop. The other two cars were compacts, and suffered greatly. Everyone was ok though. To each their own and all, everyone has their own wish list of wants. My previous statement of unfamiliarity with small light nimble cars stands, so maybe my opinion would be different if I dropped myself into a miata and tossed it around a little. Happy new years fellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 The 4C is gorgeous and looks to be a lot of fun, since you already had an elise it seems like you will be right at home. A few strange things I heard about the car is flappy paddle transmission only and that you can't open the trunk to put any luggage in. Here's a fun video you have probably already seen. Would you trade in an 04 911 4S for a new 4C? I love my 911 but the Lotus was far more fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I would, in a heartbeat. There's nothing more fun than a tossable car. Though, maybe at that rate, I'd get an old Miata because the only thing more fun than a tossable car, is a tossable car you don't worry about breaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizman Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Would you trade in an 04 911 4S for a new 4C? I love my 911 but the Lotus was far more fun. It's a tough call, I'd probably go with the 4C if it was just a track car but the 911 wins out as my choice for a DD car. If you go to track days/ auto X see if you can find someone driving a 4C and go for a ride with them. Heres a few more videos that highlight the good and bad with a Cayman comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Massive Mountain of Salt Buries Gaggle of Acuras and Hondas at Chicago Dealership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Imagine all the places that granular salt found itself in. All the places it'll never come out of. Apparently there were some customer cars there. I'd be furious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Massive Mountain of Salt Buries Gaggle of Acuras and Hondas at Chicago Dealership Wow, I drive by that thing every time I get on the expressway. That really sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1G3dQc-w8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Car Throttle is a bunch of half-wrong clickbait nonsense. If you're using a picture of Vin Diesel to demonstrate what a tuner is, you're doing it wrong. Not to mention, The Fast and the Furious was the source of Rice as we know it. Edited January 9, 2015 by SchizophrenicMC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I notice the wise decision on Ford's part not to include any SN95s. Actually, I drove a new turbo Mustang last week. It was surprisingly good. The car is a lot more confident with that IRS in the back, and there's just enough boost lag to make it fun. Plus I got it to bark the tires in third, on a test drive so that's always a plus. I'm also a big fan of the display in the center of the instrument panel. I can watch all the gauges that there wasn't enough room to put analog sweepers in for. Boost/Vac, IAT (which was surprisingly cold- Ford must have figured out cold air intake), cylinder head temp, EGT, oil pressure, oil temperature, and others. That's my favorite thing about all the technological intrusion into cars. Of course I also noted that backup cameras are standard equipment. Which is good, because there is no rearward visibility in this car. The whole thing feels refreshingly small- from the inside. Outside it's still fairly sizable, and if you spend some time looking around inside, you realize just how big all the steel structures around you are. No wonder they couldn't get the weight closer to 3000lbs. Having driven the S550, I would buy one, if I had the budget, to daily drive. Of course, if I wanted a 300hp 2.xl turbo 4 sport coupe, I'd bolt a snail to my 240SX. Be a lot cheaper. Much lighter weight too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatalist Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Speaking of Ford..... here's the new GT: http://jalopnik.com/ford-gt-this-is-it-1678893649 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Uh, thats crazy looking. They really need to tone that design down. Good about the turbo6 though. Those V8 posts are moronic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The design may be crazy, but I really like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Ford at NAIAS Today: They unveiled the 2016 GT (600hp twin-turbo V6 supercar, speaks for itself), 2016 Mustang GT350R (standard carbon fiber wheels!), and 2017 Raptor, and they spoke of plans for 12 performance models to be released between now and 2020, including 7 models by the end of next year. Who's talking about the new Titan now? Edited January 12, 2015 by SchizophrenicMC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The design may be crazy, but I really like it. The side wings that just let air flow by a portion of the car... but are still there for some reason... I don't get. What do the side intakes do? They can only send air to the wheels!? More brake cooling!? I need to see some engineering drawings before I can really say if I like that thing or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I expect they primarily serve for brake cooling, but they may also serve to cool the ELSD system I expect it will invariably have, to keep 600hp from a heavily turbocharged engine under control. Not to mention, it's mid-engined and heavily twin-turbo'd, and Ford has been pretty good about cooling their boost. Remember: with a car like this, there's always more room for another cooler. Look at the Super Silhouette Silvia (1984) Like many of its kin, it had radiators out the wazoo, including the two in the rear widebody arches- these freed up room in the front for the intercoolers used to get the twin-carb 2.0l engine to almost 600hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I notice the wise decision on Ford's part not to include any SN95s. Actually, I drove a new turbo Mustang last week. It was surprisingly good. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna end up getting a turbo mustang soon. Probably in the next few months, definitely by the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchizophrenicMC Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 If I had anything approaching the budget for one, I'd buy one. Especially because I get Z Plan pricing. It has just enough boost lag to feel like it's turbocharged, and it was quite a good drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.