Thanks for the pictures, Spart! I was looking forward to somebody linking to another source, as I had encountered problems with the site in the original link, as well.
I think it is a decent looking car (beats the crap outta'f an Enzo, IMO). At 2800 lbs, it ought to be a very competitively handling car- potentially in the same realm of the legendary McLaren. A 360 is so "done", and there is absolutely no comparison when you have 800+ ft-lbs of broadrange torque to play with... It would be an entirely different experience from any rotary, as well (whether or not it is a blown rotary). The hp is there, plus the torque on this thing will walk over anything. Going to lighter cars in the 2000 lbs range isn't exactly helpful, either. They can become too darty, but at the same time "floaty", until you get some speed on so the downforce equipment starts to take effect. Tires do need some amount of load on them for best performance. Go too light, and the tires simply won't reach their full potential.
Where this thing will really earn its uniqueness is that top speed- 248 mph (if it really turns out to be true). That and torque that would make a Viper look like a pussycat, of course. This looks to be a car with some big shoes to fill, but at least it isn't ugly as an Enzo that relies on its Ferrari nameplate to be remotely credible as a supercar. This thing reminds me a bit of that Ford GT90 concept that (unfortunately) only made a small ripple a while ago.
Sorry, but Splinemodel is right. It ain't pretty, it ain't practical, and in supercar/racecar terms, it's probably too portly to be really fast around most tracks (excepting long affairs with few turns).
Probably still get spanked by an assortment of racers from small builders, and/or highly modified competition fare from big boys like Chevy/Cadillac, Audi/Bentley, McLaren, Roush, Porsche, Ferrari yadda yadda...
Too ugly for the street, too slow for the track -- that top speed figure means nothing when you throw a few turns into the mix. Any car that can move around 200MPH but weighs less and has better down force (a real race car) will kill it aruond a track. The mighty McLaren F1 (240MPH) got beat newer "slower" cars with better handling and grip.
This is a exotic street car, not a track car. A car of this weight with that kind of power is simply unheard of, period (aside from the McLaren, which is GOOD company, indeed). At 2800 lbs, this car has the potential to handle better than a great majority of other production sports cars that typically weigh in at 3300, 3400, 3600, 3800 lbs, and up. 3600+ lbs is when you start complaining about a "portly" car. It is no more "portly" than your average MR2, Integra, RSX, NSX, RX7, or RX8, for that matter...but it has about 4x the hp and torque? Really- if there is something to complain about this car, it isn't the weight.
When has any extreme sports car ever fallen into the "practical" range, anyway?
No, Sir! This car is exactly in the window to present formidable competition to any of the modified and limited production examples you refer to as "small builders" and "big boys" who you say would "spank" it. Given the lesser speed range of the cars you imply and the power reserves claimed for this Chrysler "prototype", they could add so much aero equipment on it to make it stick to the road, it would make the other cars seem like ill-handling econoboxes from the 70's. "240 mph" is simply a more impressive capability marketing-wise, since so few cars can do it.
The "too ugly for the street, too slow for the track" is a weak argument, since that could be applied to virtually any car that has ever aspired to performance standards. Naturally, it applies more to some cars than others (the Enzo, for example, IMO), but this car is certainly not so much as you are implying relative to other cars. There will always be some car that can be modded to be "better" if you have the cash. To bring "modded cars" into the issue is a weak argument, as well. The bottomline remains that when held up to the gold standards of the production car world, it compares quite favorably. It has the potential to essentially be the modern-day McLaren- something that has been missing for far too long.
No he's not. He had to point to a kit car (!) to find something with a comparable power to weight ratio. As for the 360 Modena, yeah, it's great to look at but it has half the power and is considerably heavier.
It's not a production car any more than an Ultima, which is a serious race/production car, not a kit. Read what the people who've driven it have to say.
This Chrysler is at best a limited production car. Such a car can be used two ways, on the street or on the track.
On the street it looks like shit, and will probably kill the first rich boy who plants his foot in it, assuming he can launch it at all.
Numerous offerings from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche are more "practical" because even though they're insanely fast, any idiot can get in and drive them without trouble. They don't dart about, aren't ponderous, they drive like real street vehicles.
A race car does things that people who haven't been in one aren't aware of. They steer differently and require very different inputs in order to get them to go where you want.
Something like this Chrysler or a McLaren F1 are interesting achievements because they bridge the two worlds of street and race dynamics, but they are neccessarily good for either.
Nothing in the world can save that gawd awful styling on the Chyrsler. At the track it doesn't matter, but then again, at the track there will be faster and even more numerous limited production machinery.
It makes total sense to compare the four-twelve to limited production machinery and endurance class/club racers because that's what it will be used against.
To say it beats production machinery is an utter joke. If they build in any of these, they might build a few dozen, hardly a production car.
It's not a production car any more than an Ultima, which is a serious race/production car, not a kit.
OK, fine- the 4-12 is still an impressive offering for a major car brand. Once you go past that, virtually nothing can be "impressive" because any small shop can be called upon to build something "better" than the next guy given enough money.
Quote:
This Chrysler is at best a limited production car. Such a car can be used two ways, on the street or on the track.
As with most exotics, I doubt it will see any hard driving on a track. It will be cruising on the street purely to represent. At the most, it might see some short sprints on the hwy or a ballsy jackrabbit start from a stoplight. It still won't diminish the impressiveness of its 240 mph capability, it would annihilate just about anything in a street drag, and will corner far harder than you would ever dare on a right-angle intersection or onramp.
Quote:
On the street it looks like shit,...
So what is your idea of an ultra-performance car that looks good?
Quote:
...and will probably kill the first rich boy who plants his foot in it, assuming he can launch it at all.
This would be the same for anything from a Camaro to a Corvette. So why is the 4-12 soley at odds because of this?
Quote:
Numerous offerings from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche are more "practical" because even though they're insanely fast, any idiot can get in and drive them without trouble.
You think a Ferrari can't get tail around on you in a second? Seriously? An older Porsche 9xx series? Yes, do try a throttle lift with engine braking midway through a fast exit ramp... Lamborghini gets tempered a bit with its AWD, and the latest Porsches have been "dumbed-down" a bit in handling with intentional understeer and vehicle dynamic control electronics. Still, any of these vehicles can get an "idiot" killed quite easily. To think that they can fully compensate for poor driving skill is simply ludicrous.
Quote:
They don't dart about, aren't ponderous, they drive like real street vehicles.
How can you be so sure that the 4-12 will not have the same driving feel? Have you or anybody had the chance to drive one already?
Quote:
Something like this Chrysler or a McLaren F1 are interesting achievements because they bridge the two worlds of street and race dynamics, but they are neccessarily good for either.
A race car makes for a poor car for street use, as well. What's your point? There's no point in fancy street cars because race cars are faster?
Quote:
Nothing in the world can save that gawd awful styling on the Chyrsler.
Again, how can you be so sure that this "gawd awful styling" is truly a universal perception and not just your own? What car did you have in mind that is faster and looks better?
Quote:
At the track it doesn't matter, but then again, at the track there will be faster and even more numerous limited production machinery.
Quote:
It makes total sense to compare the four-twelve to limited production machinery and endurance class/club racers because that's what it will be used against.
Anything can be modded to be just a step faster than the next guy... What's your point?
Quote:
To say it beats production machinery is an utter joke. If they build in any of these, they might build a few dozen, hardly a production car.
It's a supercar done by a major manufacturer- certainly an achievement not to be dismissed. For a company obsessed with minivans and family vehicles, this is a welcome effort.
The point is that exclusive fancy street cars made just to "cruise down the boulevard and represent" ought to look good, and that looks just as bad as most of the rice rocket "fast and furious" teen punk, wannabe fast garbage being built by high school drops outs between shifts at Wendy's, just with nicer surface finishes. It even manages to ruin the unique exotic styling advantages that many mid engine cars enjoy.
I mean, what the hell is it? A pastiche of the worst of Auto union and ponderous Bugatti concepts and "construx" toys rolled together with the design skill of a kindergarten doodler? Crap, pure unadulterated, "expensive" crap. The most offensive kind of crap actually, because it banks on the idea that people will like it simply because it costs a lot and you won't see many of them. With styling like that I say, thank god we won't!
People buying a street machine will find better elsewhere, much better. Likewise with those seeking a track weapon. That was the original point.
So your major beef is that you just don't like the way it looks? It's your opinion, of course. What I question is why you think that everyone else must think it is ugly with you? Additionally, you still haven't given a suggestion as to what you think is a good looking car in the same performance caliber as the 412.
As for cruising down the boulevard, it's just a fact of life. All of your fave cars from Ferrari, Lamborghini, to Bugatti will be called to that service. It's not something only the 412 would be doing. No one in their right mind is going to drive the wheels off such an "investment", risk getting the bodywork scratched or dented, or otherwise consume their purchase at such a price level. That's just the way things like that go.
This is a exotic street car, not a track car. . . .
Back in the day -- by which I mean the 50's and 60's -- you could go out and buy a Ferrari, and all the sudden you'd have a car that could compete in MAJOR races. It shouldn't be different these days. If I'm going to put down serious money for a car that (a) looks like it's a race car (b) has astoundingly shitty ride quality and (c) has nil for storage space, it better damn well be track-able. These days it's a little more difficult, but it's still possible. The F40, the GT40, and supposedly the Enzo are today's serious race cars.
Yes, it does weigh as much as my RX-7, and I'm sure it's a lot faster. But the RX-7 listed for 33 grand. for another 33 grand, peter farrell will be happy to do some crazy shit to it (20B), and you end up with a very potent track car that runs, hark, about 10.6 quarters as well. Granted it still might be outclassed by the new Chrysler, the Ultima GTR would probably tame it, and the 20B Ultima GTR would probably beat it.
What is the Ultima GTR? It's a british kit car that will set you back less than 100 grand to get one fully assembled with a 20B turbo in it. It has no AC, no heater, no radio, and no roll down windows. But at the end of the day it's a car that you can take to a MAJOR race and have a worthy vehicle.
Remember when some MG's beat up on the Audi R8's not too long ago? Now that's something to aspire to. Given the track record of the Viper GTS, which I don't recall being stellar, I'm not sure if Chrysler has the right stuff for the supercar market.
Yes, it does weigh as much as my RX-7, and I'm sure it's a lot faster. But the RX-7 listed for 33 grand. for another 33 grand, peter farrell will be happy to do some crazy shit to it (20B), and you end up with a very potent track car that runs, hark, about 10.6 quarters as well.
"...do some crazy shit to it..."? I thought your whole point was the ready-made track car? If you have to "do something to it", then it isn't very well "ready made". You can "do something" to almost any car and make it competitive on the track. Big deal! That's why people "do something" to cars. The only reason I even brought up "RX-7" is because it was claimed that 2800 lbs is now somehow "portly". Why is 2800 lbs portly for the 412, but seemingly just fine for an RX-7? Sort of like the trick question- what is more portly, 1 lb of feathers or 1 lb of wood? The answer is, 2800 lbs is NOT portly, regardless of the car! W/o knowing more about the specifications of this car, one can only assume that the 412 would handle equally well to an RX-7, utterly blow it away on the straights, top speed it by what- 50%, and look far more exclusive to boot. I'd say the 412 has earned a niche for itself worthy of some respect...
"...do some crazy shit to it..."? I thought your whole point was the ready-made track car? If you have to "do something to it", then it isn't very well "ready made". You can "do something" to almost any car and make it competitive on the track. Big deal! That's why people "do something" to cars. The only reason I even brought up "RX-7" is because it was claimed that 2800 lbs is now somehow "portly". Why is 2800 lbs portly for the 412, but seemingly just fine for an RX-7? Sort of like the trick question- what is more portly, 1 lb of feathers or 1 lb of wood? The answer is, 2800 lbs is NOT portly, regardless of the car! W/o knowing more about the specifications of this car, one can only assume that the 412 would handle equally well to an RX-7, utterly blow it away on the straights, top speed it by what- 50%, and look far more exclusive to boot. I'd say the 412 has earned a niche for itself worthy of some respect...
I would hope that it would be faster than a PFS Rx-7. Of course, with four turbos the 412 has already had the crazy shit done to it. (I'd be interested to see dyno results)
The point I'm making, which you didn't seem to grasp, is that the 412 should be a straight up, track-able car. With that much torque, it doesn't even need to corner well, although the argument can be made that it actually has too much torque and is probably insanely difficult to drive.
But 2800lbs is too heavy for a race car. The coefficients of friction for rubber increase as the normal force decreases. Hence a lighter car has better grip, and accurate handling is, for the most part, more important than torque and power unless your goal is to spin rubber. You can compensate with huge rear tires, but things get dicey when you don't have the same rubber on all four corners, and the big rear tires slow it down.
I would hope that it would be faster than a PFS Rx-7. Of course, with four turbos the 412 has already had the crazy shit done to it. (I'd be interested to see dyno results)
The point I'm making, which you didn't seem to grasp, is that the 412 should be a straight up, track-able car...
It's a street car! The fact that you're even comparing it to a track car should tell you something.
first thing anyone is going to do to that thing when they get it is to rip out the stock computer and get those turbos really working.
to be quite honest, with the hardware under the hood and 4 turbos, those numbers aren't that good.
I was about to say the same thing. The problem, though, is that it's a longer-stroke engine optimized for torque. But 850ft lbs of torque on boost is too much. If you're going around a turn and those turbos spool up. . . . Crazy spinout! If the engine could be tweaked to 500ft lbs and monstrous hp, it would be better.
Alternatively, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the turbos were yanked completely. Lighter car, more predictable power/torque output.
to be quite honest, with the hardware under the hood and 4 turbos, those numbers aren't that good.
They're probably using four turbos so they can get away with smaller turbos. Less spool-up and less of a kick when they do start blowing would make the beast a little easier to control.
Four 911-style turbos would be impossible to manage (never mind that they'd probably just blow the car up).
So your major beef is that you just don't like the way it looks? It's your opinion, of course. What I question is why you think that everyone else must think it is ugly with you? Additionally, you still haven't given a suggestion as to what you think is a good looking car in the same performance caliber as the 412.
As for cruising down the boulevard, it's just a fact of life. All of your fave cars from Ferrari, Lamborghini, to Bugatti will be called to that service. It's not something only the 412 would be doing. No one in their right mind is going to drive the wheels off such an "investment", risk getting the bodywork scratched or dented, or otherwise consume their purchase at such a price level. That's just the way things like that go.
No my major beef is that it looks like crap, whether I like the styling or not is not in question, it looks like crap and I have the authority to say so.
Plenty of exotics look better, so what if they're slower? The point of these cars is class, and by class I mean pussy, which is really what we mean when we distill class down to its most elemental -- who fvcks what, the pecking order, if you will.
Class is economic because it deals with an artificially imposed scarcity, pussy, but it isn't monetary per se, pussy responds to more than just money.
This car is a rich boy's equivalent of a late 70's firebird with the flaming chicken decal. Like Mr Firebird, Mr Four-twelve just doesn't get it, his bank balance changes nothing, he's a cretin and collects pussy only due to flaws inherent in the breed.
They're probably using four turbos so they can get away with smaller turbos. Less spool-up and less of a kick when they do start blowing would make the beast a little easier to control.
Four 911-style turbos would be impossible to manage (never mind that they'd probably just blow the car up).
Well, four turbos are used because it has four independent exhausts, and furthermore, blowing a 6 Liter engine takes a lot of turbine. To get 8-10psi out of a 6 Liter engine is no small task.
Anyway, the 911 style turbo is minor league. If you want to talk about a monstrous turbo, it's all about the Audi RS-2. . . WRC cars are pretty hard-blown too.
Comments
I think it is a decent looking car (beats the crap outta'f an Enzo, IMO). At 2800 lbs, it ought to be a very competitively handling car- potentially in the same realm of the legendary McLaren. A 360 is so "done", and there is absolutely no comparison when you have 800+ ft-lbs of broadrange torque to play with... It would be an entirely different experience from any rotary, as well (whether or not it is a blown rotary). The hp is there, plus the torque on this thing will walk over anything. Going to lighter cars in the 2000 lbs range isn't exactly helpful, either. They can become too darty, but at the same time "floaty", until you get some speed on so the downforce equipment starts to take effect. Tires do need some amount of load on them for best performance. Go too light, and the tires simply won't reach their full potential.
Where this thing will really earn its uniqueness is that top speed- 248 mph (if it really turns out to be true). That and torque that would make a Viper look like a pussycat, of course.
Probably still get spanked by an assortment of racers from small builders, and/or highly modified competition fare from big boys like Chevy/Cadillac, Audi/Bentley, McLaren, Roush, Porsche, Ferrari yadda yadda...
Too ugly for the street, too slow for the track -- that top speed figure means nothing when you throw a few turns into the mix. Any car that can move around 200MPH but weighs less and has better down force (a real race car) will kill it aruond a track. The mighty McLaren F1 (240MPH) got beat newer "slower" cars with better handling and grip.
This is a exotic street car, not a track car. A car of this weight with that kind of power is simply unheard of, period (aside from the McLaren, which is GOOD company, indeed). At 2800 lbs, this car has the potential to handle better than a great majority of other production sports cars that typically weigh in at 3300, 3400, 3600, 3800 lbs, and up. 3600+ lbs is when you start complaining about a "portly" car. It is no more "portly" than your average MR2, Integra, RSX, NSX, RX7, or RX8, for that matter...but it has about 4x the hp and torque? Really- if there is something to complain about this car, it isn't the weight.
When has any extreme sports car ever fallen into the "practical" range, anyway?
No, Sir! This car is exactly in the window to present formidable competition to any of the modified and limited production examples you refer to as "small builders" and "big boys" who you say would "spank" it.
The "too ugly for the street, too slow for the track" is a weak argument, since that could be applied to virtually any car that has ever aspired to performance standards. Naturally, it applies more to some cars than others (the Enzo, for example, IMO), but this car is certainly not so much as you are implying relative to other cars. There will always be some car that can be modded to be "better" if you have the cash. To bring "modded cars" into the issue is a weak argument, as well. The bottomline remains that when held up to the gold standards of the production car world, it compares quite favorably. It has the potential to essentially be the modern-day McLaren- something that has been missing for far too long.
Originally posted by Matsu
Sorry, but Splinemodel is right...
No he's not. He had to point to a kit car (!) to find something with a comparable power to weight ratio. As for the 360 Modena, yeah, it's great to look at but it has half the power and is considerably heavier.
i'd buy a koenigsegg. much prettier.
This Chrysler is at best a limited production car. Such a car can be used two ways, on the street or on the track.
On the street it looks like shit, and will probably kill the first rich boy who plants his foot in it, assuming he can launch it at all.
Numerous offerings from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche are more "practical" because even though they're insanely fast, any idiot can get in and drive them without trouble. They don't dart about, aren't ponderous, they drive like real street vehicles.
A race car does things that people who haven't been in one aren't aware of. They steer differently and require very different inputs in order to get them to go where you want.
Something like this Chrysler or a McLaren F1 are interesting achievements because they bridge the two worlds of street and race dynamics, but they are neccessarily good for either.
Nothing in the world can save that gawd awful styling on the Chyrsler. At the track it doesn't matter, but then again, at the track there will be faster and even more numerous limited production machinery.
It makes total sense to compare the four-twelve to limited production machinery and endurance class/club racers because that's what it will be used against.
To say it beats production machinery is an utter joke. If they build in any of these, they might build a few dozen, hardly a production car.
Originally posted by Matsu
It's not a production car any more than an Ultima, which is a serious race/production car, not a kit.
OK, fine- the 4-12 is still an impressive offering for a major car brand. Once you go past that, virtually nothing can be "impressive" because any small shop can be called upon to build something "better" than the next guy given enough money.
Quote:
This Chrysler is at best a limited production car. Such a car can be used two ways, on the street or on the track.
As with most exotics, I doubt it will see any hard driving on a track. It will be cruising on the street purely to represent. At the most, it might see some short sprints on the hwy or a ballsy jackrabbit start from a stoplight. It still won't diminish the impressiveness of its 240 mph capability, it would annihilate just about anything in a street drag, and will corner far harder than you would ever dare on a right-angle intersection or onramp.
Quote:
On the street it looks like shit,...
So what is your idea of an ultra-performance car that looks good?
Quote:
...and will probably kill the first rich boy who plants his foot in it, assuming he can launch it at all.
This would be the same for anything from a Camaro to a Corvette. So why is the 4-12 soley at odds because of this?
Quote:
Numerous offerings from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche are more "practical" because even though they're insanely fast, any idiot can get in and drive them without trouble.
You think a Ferrari can't get tail around on you in a second? Seriously? An older Porsche 9xx series? Yes, do try a throttle lift with engine braking midway through a fast exit ramp... Lamborghini gets tempered a bit with its AWD, and the latest Porsches have been "dumbed-down" a bit in handling with intentional understeer and vehicle dynamic control electronics. Still, any of these vehicles can get an "idiot" killed quite easily. To think that they can fully compensate for poor driving skill is simply ludicrous.
Quote:
They don't dart about, aren't ponderous, they drive like real street vehicles.
How can you be so sure that the 4-12 will not have the same driving feel? Have you or anybody had the chance to drive one already?
Quote:
Something like this Chrysler or a McLaren F1 are interesting achievements because they bridge the two worlds of street and race dynamics, but they are neccessarily good for either.
A race car makes for a poor car for street use, as well. What's your point? There's no point in fancy street cars because race cars are faster?
Quote:
Nothing in the world can save that gawd awful styling on the Chyrsler.
Again, how can you be so sure that this "gawd awful styling" is truly a universal perception and not just your own? What car did you have in mind that is faster and looks better?
Quote:
At the track it doesn't matter, but then again, at the track there will be faster and even more numerous limited production machinery.
Quote:
It makes total sense to compare the four-twelve to limited production machinery and endurance class/club racers because that's what it will be used against.
Anything can be modded to be just a step faster than the next guy... What's your point?
Quote:
To say it beats production machinery is an utter joke. If they build in any of these, they might build a few dozen, hardly a production car.
It's a supercar done by a major manufacturer- certainly an achievement not to be dismissed. For a company obsessed with minivans and family vehicles, this is a welcome effort.
I mean, what the hell is it? A pastiche of the worst of Auto union and ponderous Bugatti concepts and "construx" toys rolled together with the design skill of a kindergarten doodler? Crap, pure unadulterated, "expensive" crap. The most offensive kind of crap actually, because it banks on the idea that people will like it simply because it costs a lot and you won't see many of them. With styling like that I say, thank god we won't!
People buying a street machine will find better elsewhere, much better. Likewise with those seeking a track weapon. That was the original point.
As for cruising down the boulevard, it's just a fact of life. All of your fave cars from Ferrari, Lamborghini, to Bugatti will be called to that service. It's not something only the 412 would be doing. No one in their right mind is going to drive the wheels off such an "investment", risk getting the bodywork scratched or dented, or otherwise consume their purchase at such a price level. That's just the way things like that go.
Originally posted by Randycat99
2800 lbs is portly now???!??
This is a exotic street car, not a track car. . . .
Back in the day -- by which I mean the 50's and 60's -- you could go out and buy a Ferrari, and all the sudden you'd have a car that could compete in MAJOR races. It shouldn't be different these days. If I'm going to put down serious money for a car that (a) looks like it's a race car (b) has astoundingly shitty ride quality and (c) has nil for storage space, it better damn well be track-able. These days it's a little more difficult, but it's still possible. The F40, the GT40, and supposedly the Enzo are today's serious race cars.
Yes, it does weigh as much as my RX-7, and I'm sure it's a lot faster. But the RX-7 listed for 33 grand. for another 33 grand, peter farrell will be happy to do some crazy shit to it (20B), and you end up with a very potent track car that runs, hark, about 10.6 quarters as well. Granted it still might be outclassed by the new Chrysler, the Ultima GTR would probably tame it, and the 20B Ultima GTR would probably beat it.
What is the Ultima GTR? It's a british kit car that will set you back less than 100 grand to get one fully assembled with a 20B turbo in it. It has no AC, no heater, no radio, and no roll down windows. But at the end of the day it's a car that you can take to a MAJOR race and have a worthy vehicle.
Remember when some MG's beat up on the Audi R8's not too long ago? Now that's something to aspire to. Given the track record of the Viper GTS, which I don't recall being stellar, I'm not sure if Chrysler has the right stuff for the supercar market.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Yes, it does weigh as much as my RX-7, and I'm sure it's a lot faster. But the RX-7 listed for 33 grand. for another 33 grand, peter farrell will be happy to do some crazy shit to it (20B), and you end up with a very potent track car that runs, hark, about 10.6 quarters as well.
"...do some crazy shit to it..."? I thought your whole point was the ready-made track car? If you have to "do something to it", then it isn't very well "ready made". You can "do something" to almost any car and make it competitive on the track. Big deal! That's why people "do something" to cars. The only reason I even brought up "RX-7" is because it was claimed that 2800 lbs is now somehow "portly". Why is 2800 lbs portly for the 412, but seemingly just fine for an RX-7? Sort of like the trick question- what is more portly, 1 lb of feathers or 1 lb of wood? The answer is, 2800 lbs is NOT portly, regardless of the car!
Originally posted by Randycat99
"...do some crazy shit to it..."? I thought your whole point was the ready-made track car? If you have to "do something to it", then it isn't very well "ready made". You can "do something" to almost any car and make it competitive on the track. Big deal! That's why people "do something" to cars. The only reason I even brought up "RX-7" is because it was claimed that 2800 lbs is now somehow "portly". Why is 2800 lbs portly for the 412, but seemingly just fine for an RX-7? Sort of like the trick question- what is more portly, 1 lb of feathers or 1 lb of wood? The answer is, 2800 lbs is NOT portly, regardless of the car!
I would hope that it would be faster than a PFS Rx-7. Of course, with four turbos the 412 has already had the crazy shit done to it. (I'd be interested to see dyno results)
The point I'm making, which you didn't seem to grasp, is that the 412 should be a straight up, track-able car. With that much torque, it doesn't even need to corner well, although the argument can be made that it actually has too much torque and is probably insanely difficult to drive.
But 2800lbs is too heavy for a race car. The coefficients of friction for rubber increase as the normal force decreases. Hence a lighter car has better grip, and accurate handling is, for the most part, more important than torque and power unless your goal is to spin rubber. You can compensate with huge rear tires, but things get dicey when you don't have the same rubber on all four corners, and the big rear tires slow it down.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I would hope that it would be faster than a PFS Rx-7. Of course, with four turbos the 412 has already had the crazy shit done to it. (I'd be interested to see dyno results)
The point I'm making, which you didn't seem to grasp, is that the 412 should be a straight up, track-able car...
It's a street car! The fact that you're even comparing it to a track car should tell you something.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It's a street car! The fact that you're even comparing it to a track car should tell you something.
Having a car like that and not racing it is like being married to (your pick of really hot chick) and never having sex.
to be quite honest, with the hardware under the hood and 4 turbos, those numbers aren't that good.
Originally posted by alcimedes
first thing anyone is going to do to that thing when they get it is to rip out the stock computer and get those turbos really working.
to be quite honest, with the hardware under the hood and 4 turbos, those numbers aren't that good.
I was about to say the same thing. The problem, though, is that it's a longer-stroke engine optimized for torque. But 850ft lbs of torque on boost is too much. If you're going around a turn and those turbos spool up. . . . Crazy spinout! If the engine could be tweaked to 500ft lbs and monstrous hp, it would be better.
Alternatively, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the turbos were yanked completely. Lighter car, more predictable power/torque output.
Originally posted by alcimedes
to be quite honest, with the hardware under the hood and 4 turbos, those numbers aren't that good.
They're probably using four turbos so they can get away with smaller turbos. Less spool-up and less of a kick when they do start blowing would make the beast a little easier to control.
Four 911-style turbos would be impossible to manage (never mind that they'd probably just blow the car up).
Originally posted by Randycat99
So your major beef is that you just don't like the way it looks? It's your opinion, of course. What I question is why you think that everyone else must think it is ugly with you? Additionally, you still haven't given a suggestion as to what you think is a good looking car in the same performance caliber as the 412.
As for cruising down the boulevard, it's just a fact of life. All of your fave cars from Ferrari, Lamborghini, to Bugatti will be called to that service. It's not something only the 412 would be doing. No one in their right mind is going to drive the wheels off such an "investment", risk getting the bodywork scratched or dented, or otherwise consume their purchase at such a price level. That's just the way things like that go.
No my major beef is that it looks like crap, whether I like the styling or not is not in question, it looks like crap and I have the authority to say so.
Plenty of exotics look better, so what if they're slower? The point of these cars is class, and by class I mean pussy, which is really what we mean when we distill class down to its most elemental -- who fvcks what, the pecking order, if you will.
Class is economic because it deals with an artificially imposed scarcity, pussy, but it isn't monetary per se, pussy responds to more than just money.
This car is a rich boy's equivalent of a late 70's firebird with the flaming chicken decal. Like Mr Firebird, Mr Four-twelve just doesn't get it, his bank balance changes nothing, he's a cretin and collects pussy only due to flaws inherent in the breed.
Style lesson over for today.
Originally posted by Amorph
They're probably using four turbos so they can get away with smaller turbos. Less spool-up and less of a kick when they do start blowing would make the beast a little easier to control.
Four 911-style turbos would be impossible to manage (never mind that they'd probably just blow the car up).
Well, four turbos are used because it has four independent exhausts, and furthermore, blowing a 6 Liter engine takes a lot of turbine. To get 8-10psi out of a 6 Liter engine is no small task.
Anyway, the 911 style turbo is minor league. If you want to talk about a monstrous turbo, it's all about the Audi RS-2. . . WRC cars are pretty hard-blown too.