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.
??? OK, you've gone off the deep end with your explanation there. If I want a car like that, I want it because I want to drive it. I don't care what the "pussy quotient" is on it (but I would certainly take any that comes along as a result of it).
You still have yet to give specific examples of cars that are as fast that look considerably better. Don't forget the pics...
I was about to say the same thing. The problem, though, is that it's a longer-stroke engine optimized for torque.
Longer than what? Where did they even mention the stroke spec?
It's 4 turbos to give progressive and responsive boost over a broad rpm range, not max hp rating. You get the balls of the engine coming on line as early as 2500 rpms, instead of waiting for the typical sports car engine to "wake-up" at 4000+ rpm.
Quote:
But 850ft lbs of torque on boost is too much.
You don't have to mash the pedal at every provocation like you would with other engines that are utterly gutless unless you drive the piss out of them. There's that thing where you actually use all the positions in between from pedal up to pedal to the floor. Where the 850 ft-lbs of torque really comes in handy is when you are in like 4th and 5th gear, and that torque comes in to push the car along like it is still in 1st.
Quote:
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.
Turbo setups which focus on ultimate peak hp while ignoring the entire bottom/mid range are precisely the kind of engines that get you into trouble when you mash the pedal mid-turn. At one point the engine is utterly weak and then bam, the boost comes on and you've broken traction because of the abrupt transition.
Quote:
Alternatively, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the turbos were yanked completely. Lighter car, more predictable power/torque output.
Well then it wouldn't be much different than a lot of V12 sports cars already out, now would it?
But 2800lbs is too heavy for a race car. The coefficients of friction for rubber increase as the normal force decreases.
...not w/o bounds. There is a linear region where this relationship is valid. Go too light, and the tires just won't bite the pavement as well as they should. Go too heavy, and the ultimate grip will top out. High performance street tires seem to work just fine on 3200-3800 lbs cars, btw (where the meat of performance cars seem to sit). 2800 should be nicely in the same range. Getting below 2400 will tend to be too light for serious coupling to the pavement.
You sort of get me wrong. I don't hate the car, I just am not impressed. First of all, I think the car is ugly. Second of all, it's just so clear that it was designed to be another american car that is too squirrely in the corners. No matter how you want to quantize it, 850 ft lbs of torque is superfluous. And unless you're a moron racer, you're going to want to keep it in its powerband as much as possible. Otherwise, like you said, it's no different than other V12 cars. (probably slower)
I also have no idea where you pulled up the sequential turbo idea. Twin turbos aren't all sequential twins. I don't know if this car has a sequential setup or not. But even so, in a twin sequential turbo setup (with much less torque), if the second stage spools around a turn, you spin out. This car redlines at 5750rpm (thus my reasoning that it's a long stroke, high friction engine), so if you said there are four turbo zones in there, when you downshift to 4000rpm coming out of a turn, that 4th stage is going to spool, and you're going to spin out.
Despite the fact that I've raced turbo cars, I would really prefer to not to. They are very easy to spin out.
The car is kind of a cool concept, but it reaks with the american stereotype of being "unrefined." It's clearly not refined.
lastly, your info about weight and tires may be accurate to some formula somewhere, but as far as I've seen, lighter cars handle much better. I would love to see a little Elise make a mockery of that 412 on a really twisty course.
What looks better? Easy. Any Aston Martin of the last two years. The Ferrari Testarossa, or whatever they're calling it now, 575M, the 360, especially the convertible, the outgoing 456, which was very elegant, the new replacement 612, and even the discontinued 355, though you'll whine about it only touching 180, the Lamborghini Gallardo, the Murcielago too, all the fast Astons of the last two years (Vanquish and what not), and I'll even throw in the nostalgiac Ford GT, the last edition 993 Turbos from Porsche were plenty fast, and pretty, the new 996 twin turbo is faster still (good or 200+, but it isn't near as pretty, which is part of the point)
None are as fast as the Four Twelve, but that's not the point, apart from the 355, were talking a pretty exclusive 180-200MPH club here. No one on four wheels is going to outrun you unless they know how to drive.
Then there's the McLaren F1, discontinued, that is just as fast, and done years earlier, more properly, with low weight and some innovative packaging. A very slim package, a much better "design" all around. The Enzo is fast enough as makes no difference, 215MPH, and looks much much better. It's a bit geometric by luscious Ferrari standards, but the ass (and tail lights) prove that Italians understand pussy a lot better than boys at Chrysler. Probably just as fast around a track too, seems to be the equal of the F1, so I trust it can do the job. None of these 3 are really "production" cars either. The Chrysler being a prototype, the McLaren being built by the dozens, and the Ferrari, of which there will be only 299 (likely to be the biggest "production" run of the three).
Anything hovering around the 200MPH mark is a competitor, some of these are even cars with serious low volume production numbers, not just a dozen or so cars. How many of these will chrysler build? At what price? nah, it might be outlandish, but that doesn't make it good.
Hell, there's even that Bugatti, nee VW, Veyron, or whatever they're calling it. I'm not sure that it's better looking, but at least it's statement seems less confused, and with 1000BHP, it should put down at least 240MPH on top, and it has a better pussy quotient. One could be tempted to lump the Saleen S7 in here too, but it's huge, more of a race car really. Probably fast as hell around a track, where it makes more downforce than anything else mentioned here, but I'm not so sure about the pussy quotient on that one. First (and only) time I saw one on the road (from a distance), I was almost fooled into thinking it was a Lamborghini, then I got a little closer while the guy gassed it up. Did I mention it's big? Has presence, I'll give it that.
Anyway. Back to the Four-Twelve, as far as I know, there's no affirmative action program for American exotics, either they look right and do the job, or they don't. Street, track, whatever. On the street there's a lot better looking fare. That's more important than squeezing out a bigger academic top end. On the track, there's sure to be faster machinery there too.
PS the difference between grip and traction is such that a little more weight may improve traction, but it never does anything for "grip." Why? Turn the car and as much weight as wants to push it down also wants to wrench it sideways, inertia my friends, inertia.
The little Elise would DESTROY the 4-12 around a pylon (slalom) course.
Second of all, it's just so clear that it was designed to be another american car that is too squirrely in the corners.
How did you ascertain this? Did they say it had a live rear axle in there somewhere? ...because it is made by an American company? What?
Quote:
No matter how you want to quantize it, 850 ft lbs of torque is superfluous.
It's useful in the upper gears.
Quote:
And unless you're a moron racer, you're going to want to keep it in its powerband as much as possible.
It will always be in the powerband. With 800+ ft-lbs on tap, you don't even need to downshift- just meter in the throttle. That's the benefit of big displacement and mild turbocharging (as opposed to shooting for max hp figures).
Quote:
I also have no idea where you pulled up the sequential turbo idea.
I don't know where you got that, either. I never mentioned anything of the sort. I simply mentioned that the turbocharging is modulated to give a broad torque band, instead peak numbers at the rpm max.
Quote:
This car redlines at 5750rpm (thus my reasoning that it's a long stroke, high friction engine),...
It's just a large displacement engine. If you already are generating 850 hp, what need is there to tune for higher rpms? 850 hp is 850 hp.
Quote:
Despite the fact that I've raced turbo cars, I would really prefer to not to. They are very easy to spin out.
...not surprising when considering small displacement engines boosted to the moon just to come up with the big hp numbers.
Quote:
The car is kind of a cool concept, but it reaks with the american stereotype of being "unrefined." It's clearly not refined.
This perception is more of a prejudice than anything "reeking" from this car. If you've never driven it, how can you even begin to know if it is unrefined? The specs and descriptions don't even give you enough info to take a guess at its refinement.
Quote:
lastly, your info about weight and tires may be accurate to some formula somewhere, but as far as I've seen, lighter cars handle much better.
Of course, they handle better. There's so little weight to manage. This doesn't mean they are using the tires to the same potential as in the optimal weight situation. Much of the advantage simply comes from high transient capability and narrow body dimension (when it comes to a slalom test, for example), not the necessarily the tires. Skidpad is really where the brute potential of the tires show up. That said, performance cars in the 3000 lbs range don't seem to be hurting at all. The lighter cars, however, don't seem to be such chart toppers in this area.
Quote:
I would love to see a little Elise make a mockery of that 412 on a really twisty course.
A really twisty course is about all the Elise has going for it (yes, I've seen the video, and it's no big deal). The 412 only needs to handle decently to keep up and then utterly leave the Elise in the dust when the straights come (while the Elise buzzes along topped out at a paltry 120 mph). Hell, if you throw in enough downforce wings to the 412 so that it was drag-limited at 150 mph, it would own the Elise on the curves, as well- sticking to the pavement, pulling 1.5-2 lateral g's.
What looks better? Easy. Any Aston Martin of the last two years.
Nice, but not exactly exciting. It's not even in the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar, though.
Quote:
The Ferrari Testarossa,...
I think it looks cool, too, but talk about 80's gaudiness.
Quote:
...or whatever they're calling it now, 575M,...
Yes, another nice looking design, but still not the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar. 2800 lbs is "portly", but you have no comment on the weight of a 575? C'mon!
Quote:
...the 360, especially the convertible,...
Yes, looks nice, but they're all beginning to look the same. It's getting a bit worn-out.
Quote:
...the outgoing 456, which was very elegant,...
Yes, very nice, but not really that different from the 575. The look is getting a bit overused.
Quote:
...the new replacement 612,...
...not familiar with it.
Quote:
...and even the discontinued 355, though you'll whine about it only touching 180,...
Well you answered it for yourself- not in the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar. I could also whine that its propensity to swap ends pretty much throws your "practicality" argument out the window.
Quote:
...the Lamborghini Gallardo, the Murcielago too,...
Yes, those 2 are very appealing to me aesthetically. They don't punch much past the 200 mark, though. Plus the 412 would seriously pull away from those 2 in the higher gears with 2x the torque.
Quote:
...all the fast Astons of the last two years (Vanquish and what not),...
...not really that exciting looking of a car. It's decent, but not really provocative.
Quote:
...and I'll even throw in the nostalgiac Ford GT,...
It's a nice freshening up of the original design, but that's about it.
Quote:
...the last edition 993 Turbos from Porsche were plenty fast, and pretty, the new 996 twin turbo is faster still...
...still a nice shape, but year by year losing more and more of the defined features that made the original designs so attractive. It's quickly heading for the "blob of handsoap" look. Also, neither are "240 mph" fast, and still the torque of the 412 would destroy the Porsche's in the higher gears.
Quote:
None are as fast as the Four Twelve, but that's not the point, apart from the 355, were talking a pretty exclusive 180-200MPH club here.
So you concede that the 412 exists on a level above?
Quote:
No one on four wheels is going to outrun you unless they know how to drive.
Unfortunately, the typical customer for any of these cars is not likely to be the uber driver, but they're sure to have lots of bucks. So it's not like only the 412 would suffer this.
Quote:
Then there's the McLaren F1, discontinued, that is just as fast, and done years earlier, more properly, with low weight and some innovative packaging.
The 412 seems to follow along in execution very similarly, but we'll never hear you give it the same credit. There is no shame to follow in the same footsteps, as great as the McLaren was.
Quote:
The Enzo is fast enough as makes no difference, 215MPH, and looks much much better.
Well, it's no wonder you can't get into the look of the 412, if you actually think the Enzo looks good. Talk about the emperor has no clothes... I guess it gets a by with you since it is a "Ferrari"? A few more contraptions from them like that, and even the name won't mean much in the future.
Quote:
It's a bit geometric by luscious Ferrari standards, but the ass (and tail lights) prove that Italians understand pussy a lot better than boys at Chrysler.
It's a geometric mess. Maybe the Italians are focusing on slumming for the "messy pussy" now?
Quote:
Probably just as fast around a track too, seems to be the equal of the F1, so I trust it can do the job.
I suppose it's got to make up for its horrendous looks somehow. If it could not handle, what would be the point in releasing a new model, altogether? Oh yes, and don't forget to make note of how "portly" it is...
Quote:
Anything hovering around the 200MPH mark is a competitor,...
I guess Chrysler has then beat the competition if it really ends up pulling the 240, and the others can't.
Quote:
How many of these will chrysler build? At what price? nah, it might be outlandish, but that doesn't make it good.
If they build any at all, I'd say it was valiant effort for who they are.
Quote:
Hell, there's even that Bugatti, nee VW, Veyron, or whatever they're calling it.
Ugly for sure!
Quote:
I'm not sure that it's better looking, but at least it's statement seems less confused, and with 1000BHP, it should put down at least 240MPH on top,...
Don't forget how heavy it is...not such a delicate handler, is it now?
Quote:
...and it has a better pussy quotient.
Quantified how? You? You think some ditzy broad who wants you because of the car you drive is going to be able to tell the difference between a Veyron and a 412? She's lookin' at your wallet, sonny. She could care less what the car is.
Quote:
One could be tempted to lump the Saleen S7 in here too, but it's huge, more of a race car really. Probably fast as hell around a track, where it makes more downforce than anything else mentioned here, but I'm not so sure about the pussy quotient on that one.
...too many vents, bordering on a "2 Fast, 2 Furious" overdone look...
Quote:
On the street there's a lot better looking fare.
One really wonders, if you actually think the Enzo is passable.
Quote:
On the track, there's sure to be faster machinery there too.
That would also make all the cars you mentioned above as some level of "suck".
Quote:
PS the difference between grip and traction is such that a little more weight may improve traction, but it never does anything for "grip." Why? Turn the car and as much weight as wants to push it down also wants to wrench it sideways, inertia my friends, inertia.
If it's in the same ballpark, there isn't much to complain about. The bigger cars are not exactly hurting in the lateral g department. 'nuff said.
Quote:
The little Elise would DESTROY the 4-12 around a pylon (slalom) course.
...and that's about it, just like the 412 would destroy it in virtually anything else. Leave the Elise at your pylon course. TAKE the 412 everywhere else... Most people will actually fit in the 412. Can't say the same for the Elise.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
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.
??? OK, you've gone off the deep end with your explanation there. If I want a car like that, I want it because I want to drive it. I don't care what the "pussy quotient" is on it (but I would certainly take any that comes along as a result of it).
You still have yet to give specific examples of cars that are as fast that look considerably better. Don't forget the pics...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I was about to say the same thing. The problem, though, is that it's a longer-stroke engine optimized for torque.
Longer than what? Where did they even mention the stroke spec?
It's 4 turbos to give progressive and responsive boost over a broad rpm range, not max hp rating. You get the balls of the engine coming on line as early as 2500 rpms, instead of waiting for the typical sports car engine to "wake-up" at 4000+ rpm.
Quote:
But 850ft lbs of torque on boost is too much.
You don't have to mash the pedal at every provocation like you would with other engines that are utterly gutless unless you drive the piss out of them. There's that thing where you actually use all the positions in between from pedal up to pedal to the floor. Where the 850 ft-lbs of torque really comes in handy is when you are in like 4th and 5th gear, and that torque comes in to push the car along like it is still in 1st.
Quote:
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.
Turbo setups which focus on ultimate peak hp while ignoring the entire bottom/mid range are precisely the kind of engines that get you into trouble when you mash the pedal mid-turn. At one point the engine is utterly weak and then bam, the boost comes on and you've broken traction because of the abrupt transition.
Quote:
Alternatively, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the turbos were yanked completely. Lighter car, more predictable power/torque output.
Well then it wouldn't be much different than a lot of V12 sports cars already out, now would it?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
But 2800lbs is too heavy for a race car. The coefficients of friction for rubber increase as the normal force decreases.
...not w/o bounds. There is a linear region where this relationship is valid. Go too light, and the tires just won't bite the pavement as well as they should. Go too heavy, and the ultimate grip will top out. High performance street tires seem to work just fine on 3200-3800 lbs cars, btw (where the meat of performance cars seem to sit). 2800 should be nicely in the same range. Getting below 2400 will tend to be too light for serious coupling to the pavement.
I also have no idea where you pulled up the sequential turbo idea. Twin turbos aren't all sequential twins. I don't know if this car has a sequential setup or not. But even so, in a twin sequential turbo setup (with much less torque), if the second stage spools around a turn, you spin out. This car redlines at 5750rpm (thus my reasoning that it's a long stroke, high friction engine), so if you said there are four turbo zones in there, when you downshift to 4000rpm coming out of a turn, that 4th stage is going to spool, and you're going to spin out.
Despite the fact that I've raced turbo cars, I would really prefer to not to. They are very easy to spin out.
The car is kind of a cool concept, but it reaks with the american stereotype of being "unrefined." It's clearly not refined.
lastly, your info about weight and tires may be accurate to some formula somewhere, but as far as I've seen, lighter cars handle much better. I would love to see a little Elise make a mockery of that 412 on a really twisty course.
None are as fast as the Four Twelve, but that's not the point, apart from the 355, were talking a pretty exclusive 180-200MPH club here. No one on four wheels is going to outrun you unless they know how to drive.
Then there's the McLaren F1, discontinued, that is just as fast, and done years earlier, more properly, with low weight and some innovative packaging. A very slim package, a much better "design" all around. The Enzo is fast enough as makes no difference, 215MPH, and looks much much better. It's a bit geometric by luscious Ferrari standards, but the ass (and tail lights) prove that Italians understand pussy a lot better than boys at Chrysler. Probably just as fast around a track too, seems to be the equal of the F1, so I trust it can do the job. None of these 3 are really "production" cars either. The Chrysler being a prototype, the McLaren being built by the dozens, and the Ferrari, of which there will be only 299 (likely to be the biggest "production" run of the three).
Anything hovering around the 200MPH mark is a competitor, some of these are even cars with serious low volume production numbers, not just a dozen or so cars. How many of these will chrysler build? At what price? nah, it might be outlandish, but that doesn't make it good.
Hell, there's even that Bugatti, nee VW, Veyron, or whatever they're calling it. I'm not sure that it's better looking, but at least it's statement seems less confused, and with 1000BHP, it should put down at least 240MPH on top, and it has a better pussy quotient. One could be tempted to lump the Saleen S7 in here too, but it's huge, more of a race car really. Probably fast as hell around a track, where it makes more downforce than anything else mentioned here, but I'm not so sure about the pussy quotient on that one. First (and only) time I saw one on the road (from a distance), I was almost fooled into thinking it was a Lamborghini, then I got a little closer while the guy gassed it up. Did I mention it's big? Has presence, I'll give it that.
Anyway. Back to the Four-Twelve, as far as I know, there's no affirmative action program for American exotics, either they look right and do the job, or they don't. Street, track, whatever. On the street there's a lot better looking fare. That's more important than squeezing out a bigger academic top end. On the track, there's sure to be faster machinery there too.
PS the difference between grip and traction is such that a little more weight may improve traction, but it never does anything for "grip." Why? Turn the car and as much weight as wants to push it down also wants to wrench it sideways, inertia my friends, inertia.
The little Elise would DESTROY the 4-12 around a pylon (slalom) course.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Second of all, it's just so clear that it was designed to be another american car that is too squirrely in the corners.
How did you ascertain this? Did they say it had a live rear axle in there somewhere? ...because it is made by an American company? What?
Quote:
No matter how you want to quantize it, 850 ft lbs of torque is superfluous.
It's useful in the upper gears.
Quote:
And unless you're a moron racer, you're going to want to keep it in its powerband as much as possible.
It will always be in the powerband. With 800+ ft-lbs on tap, you don't even need to downshift- just meter in the throttle. That's the benefit of big displacement and mild turbocharging (as opposed to shooting for max hp figures).
Quote:
I also have no idea where you pulled up the sequential turbo idea.
I don't know where you got that, either. I never mentioned anything of the sort. I simply mentioned that the turbocharging is modulated to give a broad torque band, instead peak numbers at the rpm max.
Quote:
This car redlines at 5750rpm (thus my reasoning that it's a long stroke, high friction engine),...
It's just a large displacement engine. If you already are generating 850 hp, what need is there to tune for higher rpms? 850 hp is 850 hp.
Quote:
Despite the fact that I've raced turbo cars, I would really prefer to not to. They are very easy to spin out.
...not surprising when considering small displacement engines boosted to the moon just to come up with the big hp numbers.
Quote:
The car is kind of a cool concept, but it reaks with the american stereotype of being "unrefined." It's clearly not refined.
This perception is more of a prejudice than anything "reeking" from this car. If you've never driven it, how can you even begin to know if it is unrefined? The specs and descriptions don't even give you enough info to take a guess at its refinement.
Quote:
lastly, your info about weight and tires may be accurate to some formula somewhere, but as far as I've seen, lighter cars handle much better.
Of course, they handle better. There's so little weight to manage. This doesn't mean they are using the tires to the same potential as in the optimal weight situation. Much of the advantage simply comes from high transient capability and narrow body dimension (when it comes to a slalom test, for example), not the necessarily the tires. Skidpad is really where the brute potential of the tires show up. That said, performance cars in the 3000 lbs range don't seem to be hurting at all. The lighter cars, however, don't seem to be such chart toppers in this area.
Quote:
I would love to see a little Elise make a mockery of that 412 on a really twisty course.
A really twisty course is about all the Elise has going for it (yes, I've seen the video, and it's no big deal). The 412 only needs to handle decently to keep up and then utterly leave the Elise in the dust when the straights come (while the Elise buzzes along topped out at a paltry 120 mph). Hell, if you throw in enough downforce wings to the 412 so that it was drag-limited at 150 mph, it would own the Elise on the curves, as well- sticking to the pavement, pulling 1.5-2 lateral g's.
Originally posted by Matsu
What looks better? Easy. Any Aston Martin of the last two years.
Nice, but not exactly exciting. It's not even in the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar, though.
Quote:
The Ferrari Testarossa,...
I think it looks cool, too, but talk about 80's gaudiness.
Quote:
...or whatever they're calling it now, 575M,...
Yes, another nice looking design, but still not the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar. 2800 lbs is "portly", but you have no comment on the weight of a 575? C'mon!
Quote:
...the 360, especially the convertible,...
Yes, looks nice, but they're all beginning to look the same. It's getting a bit worn-out.
Quote:
...the outgoing 456, which was very elegant,...
Yes, very nice, but not really that different from the 575. The look is getting a bit overused.
Quote:
...the new replacement 612,...
...not familiar with it.
Quote:
...and even the discontinued 355, though you'll whine about it only touching 180,...
Well you answered it for yourself- not in the same class as the quintessential, mid-engined supercar. I could also whine that its propensity to swap ends pretty much throws your "practicality" argument out the window.
Quote:
...the Lamborghini Gallardo, the Murcielago too,...
Yes, those 2 are very appealing to me aesthetically. They don't punch much past the 200 mark, though. Plus the 412 would seriously pull away from those 2 in the higher gears with 2x the torque.
Quote:
...all the fast Astons of the last two years (Vanquish and what not),...
...not really that exciting looking of a car. It's decent, but not really provocative.
Quote:
...and I'll even throw in the nostalgiac Ford GT,...
It's a nice freshening up of the original design, but that's about it.
Quote:
...the last edition 993 Turbos from Porsche were plenty fast, and pretty, the new 996 twin turbo is faster still...
...still a nice shape, but year by year losing more and more of the defined features that made the original designs so attractive. It's quickly heading for the "blob of handsoap" look. Also, neither are "240 mph" fast, and still the torque of the 412 would destroy the Porsche's in the higher gears.
Quote:
None are as fast as the Four Twelve, but that's not the point, apart from the 355, were talking a pretty exclusive 180-200MPH club here.
So you concede that the 412 exists on a level above?
Quote:
No one on four wheels is going to outrun you unless they know how to drive.
Unfortunately, the typical customer for any of these cars is not likely to be the uber driver, but they're sure to have lots of bucks. So it's not like only the 412 would suffer this.
Quote:
Then there's the McLaren F1, discontinued, that is just as fast, and done years earlier, more properly, with low weight and some innovative packaging.
The 412 seems to follow along in execution very similarly, but we'll never hear you give it the same credit. There is no shame to follow in the same footsteps, as great as the McLaren was.
Quote:
The Enzo is fast enough as makes no difference, 215MPH, and looks much much better.
Well, it's no wonder you can't get into the look of the 412, if you actually think the Enzo looks good.
Quote:
It's a bit geometric by luscious Ferrari standards, but the ass (and tail lights) prove that Italians understand pussy a lot better than boys at Chrysler.
It's a geometric mess. Maybe the Italians are focusing on slumming for the "messy pussy" now?
Quote:
Probably just as fast around a track too, seems to be the equal of the F1, so I trust it can do the job.
I suppose it's got to make up for its horrendous looks somehow. If it could not handle, what would be the point in releasing a new model, altogether? Oh yes, and don't forget to make note of how "portly" it is...
Quote:
Anything hovering around the 200MPH mark is a competitor,...
I guess Chrysler has then beat the competition if it really ends up pulling the 240, and the others can't.
Quote:
How many of these will chrysler build? At what price? nah, it might be outlandish, but that doesn't make it good.
If they build any at all, I'd say it was valiant effort for who they are.
Quote:
Hell, there's even that Bugatti, nee VW, Veyron, or whatever they're calling it.
Ugly for sure!
Quote:
I'm not sure that it's better looking, but at least it's statement seems less confused, and with 1000BHP, it should put down at least 240MPH on top,...
Don't forget how heavy it is...not such a delicate handler, is it now?
Quote:
...and it has a better pussy quotient.
Quantified how? You? You think some ditzy broad who wants you because of the car you drive is going to be able to tell the difference between a Veyron and a 412? She's lookin' at your wallet, sonny. She could care less what the car is.
Quote:
One could be tempted to lump the Saleen S7 in here too, but it's huge, more of a race car really. Probably fast as hell around a track, where it makes more downforce than anything else mentioned here, but I'm not so sure about the pussy quotient on that one.
...too many vents, bordering on a "2 Fast, 2 Furious" overdone look...
Quote:
On the street there's a lot better looking fare.
One really wonders, if you actually think the Enzo is passable.
Quote:
On the track, there's sure to be faster machinery there too.
That would also make all the cars you mentioned above as some level of "suck".
Quote:
PS the difference between grip and traction is such that a little more weight may improve traction, but it never does anything for "grip." Why? Turn the car and as much weight as wants to push it down also wants to wrench it sideways, inertia my friends, inertia.
If it's in the same ballpark, there isn't much to complain about. The bigger cars are not exactly hurting in the lateral g department. 'nuff said.
Quote:
The little Elise would DESTROY the 4-12 around a pylon (slalom) course.
...and that's about it, just like the 412 would destroy it in virtually anything else. Leave the Elise at your pylon course. TAKE the 412 everywhere else... Most people will actually fit in the 412. Can't say the same for the Elise.