View Full Version : C/D Tests Exotics
Interesting article on the cover of this month's C/D about mega-dollar GTs that I'll never be able to afford. I won't give away the finishing order except to say that their effusive praise of the F430 has made me soften my don't-give-a-shit-about-Ferraris stance a tad. I still don't feel any desire for one, but maybe if I drove an F430 that'd be different.
Some other observations--how the Gallardo finished where it did when it smoked it's clutch after one or two acceleration runs is beyond me. In my book, if a test car can't make it through the test without grenading, it should be pilloried. Most of those damn things are going to spend their lives driving from latte stand to nightclub to hotel and back, but you at least want your car to be able to survive a few abusive valets.
The Ford GT, despite its lack of racing heritage, was the fastest car around the track, posted the best performance times, had the best power to weight ratio, and looks dead sexy. Screw all of you--if I had the money, that's the car I'd buy, Z06 or no Z06.
The Merc SL65 is the Buick Grand National of Miami Beach. The engine that makes it special is doomed to die before it ever finds a proper home.
The 911 Turbo is an amazingly versatile car in this company, even with a convertible top. Hell, it's AWD system somehow managed to survive without snacking on its clutch.
There is no better looking car, inside or out, than the DB9.
Jason C
07-12-2005, 01:35 AM
There is no better looking car, inside or out, than the DB9.
Agreed. I think there is no more desireable GT car. Just look at it!
http://www.clothes2order.com/images/logos/_aston%20martain%20db9.jpg
http://amoc-na.org/web/images/stories/models_postwar/aml-db9-01.jpg
http://amoc-na.org/web/images/stories/models_postwar/aml-db9-02.jpg
http://amoc-na.org/web/images/stories/models_postwar/aml-db9-03.jpg
If I had the cash to comfortably afford one, I wouldn't care what anyone says about poseur this or that. It will look fantastic 20 years from now, which is more than I can say for BMWs current styling *experiments*. And the noise it makes when it rev-matches on downshifts! Damn. To say nothing about how you will feel when you see it in your garage.
They did talk about the F430 in quite adamant terms, no? Buy it stuka - why give a shit with what your gf thinks about your taste in cars. :rolleyes: ;) But as the specs show, it's a mid-12s car. The Z06 already ran a 12.0 on less-than-ideal conditions. The Ferrari isn't going to be faster, not even close it would seem.
Ah the lambo. What was it Yates said in a C&D editorial a while back? " Italian supercars just don't play rough... They look good parked out in front of the club, but in a street fight they're softer than mozzarella in the sun." :lol:
(At least Ferrari gives you their CS models)
I'd rather they use a GT3 or a GT2, could have made things very interesting. Still, the porkchop is definitely nicer than the lambo, poseur cab and all.
Merc... ginormous engine with limitless capabilities stuffed in a corpulent, floppy body. And a slushie to boot. The type of car that I would have the least amount of fun in. And it doesn't even look very special inside or out - don't park yours next to the Aston.
Can't say much about the Ford that hasn't been said. I think the performance result should have helped it in the final rankings more.
It's fun seeing the rags do their obligatory supercar comparisons, but in the end it's all very abstract to someone like me.
clyde
07-12-2005, 08:21 AM
Not to really change the subject, but the only thing I've read in the new issue was the Praxis test. Was anyone else horrified by the the technical and factual inaccuracies, the perpetuation of fundemental untruths and complete ommision of pertinent information (such as weight of the compressor and pump)?
I think it's time that we get past "this rag is good and this one is bad" and start paying attention to the writers.
Jason C
07-12-2005, 08:24 AM
Not to really change the subject, but the only thing I've read in the new issue was the Praxis test. Was anyone else horrified by the the technical and factual inaccuracies, the perpetuation of fundemental untruths and complete ommision of pertinent information (such as weight of the compressor and pump)?
I think it's time that we get past "this rag is good and this one is bad" and start paying attention to the writers.
I read the praxis technical article. And here I thought Webster was one of their good guys. I can't stand Yates most of the time (he feels the need to inject some politics into almost every editorial) or Bedard (writes too cutesy) but I like to read Websters articles.
Care to point out some of those inaccuracies? I'm really curious now.
Not to really change the subject, but the only thing I've read in the new issue was the Praxis test. Was anyone else horrified by the the technical and factual inaccuracies....
I remember thinking the guy didn't know what he was talking about but can't remember exactly why.....besides the incorrect photo of the ancillaries which is not actually an m3 trunk.
clyde
07-12-2005, 08:53 AM
Care to point out some of those inaccuracies? I'm really curious now.
The specific stuff that is sticking in my head at the moment...
Sending the white M3 to the dealer for an alignment to "factory specs", as if that means anything while making no mention of alignment on the Praxis car other than something about greater negative camber when the Praxis car was at the lower ride height settings (more below).
The mention of the perception that the white M3 was "better" than their previous test stock M3s.
The suggestion that the lower the car is, the better (for track work) as an absolute truth with no limitations or qualifications. The further suggestion that greater static negative camber is solely a byproduct of lowering which with the attendent implication that the stock M3 is incapable of attaining greater static negative camber without lowering (what about that "factory spec" alignment? What about pulling the pins?).
The presentation of lap times at the Chrysler proving grounds course and mention of tires getting hot (and drivers getting more familiar with the course and cars?) with a complete lack of context of how that may affect the lap times.
I could do better if I had the text of the article in front of me.
clyde
07-12-2005, 08:56 AM
Not to really change the subject, but the only thing I've read in the new issue was the Praxis test. Was anyone else horrified by the the technical and factual inaccuracies....
I remember thinking the guy didn't know what he was talking about but can't remember exactly why.....besides the incorrect photo of the ancillaries which is not actually an m3 trunk.
This was one of the things that I wasn't going to mention becuase I couldn't believe that I was remembering correctly...did it show a photo of the compressor inside the spare tire well that they passed off as a photo of the M3 installation? (which would be a photo editor error and probably not the fault of the writer)
Not to really change the subject, but the only thing I've read in the new issue was the Praxis test. Was anyone else horrified by the the technical and factual inaccuracies....
I remember thinking the guy didn't know what he was talking about but can't remember exactly why.....besides the incorrect photo of the ancillaries which is not actually an m3 trunk.
This was one of the things that I wasn't going to mention becuase I couldn't believe that I was remembering correctly...did it show a photo of the compressor inside the spare tire well that they passed off as a photo of the M3 installation? (which would be a photo editor error and probably not the fault of the writer)
It showed what must have been a compressor install in a 330, inside the spare tire well of a white 3 series. The test M3 was red, so it was apparent that it wasn't the same car, but the caption did misleadingly indicate that the pump components fit into the spare tire well without indicating a) that the pic was of a different car, or b) where the components would go on an M3 (though they still might fit in the little space you get if you pull out that styrofoam thing).
I don't think that there was any suggestion that the stock M3 is incapable of getting negative camber without lowering, and I'm not as troubled by some of the omissions as you are. This wasn't an article on how to tune your M3, or the various ways you can modify an M3 to go faster around a track. It was an article on whether the Praxis suspension by itself gives you a performance improvement over the stock setup.
Now, it may be that a more useful article would be "Does the Praxis suspension work on the M3, and is there any way to acheive the same thing for your M3 that the Praxis does without spending $3K, and if you are going to spend $3K, is the Praxis the best thing to buy?" That's an article I'd like to read, but it's not the article that C/D set out to write. For good reason--answering those questions in any sort of meaningful way would take a much bigger time and effort commitment than the article they did write (like locating multiple M3s with different setups, talking in depth to various BMW tuners, etc.) That's a great article for M3 owners, but probably won't sell a lot of magazines.
Getting back to the original article...There's a DB9 somewhere in Great Falls (where else?). I've seen it a half dozen times, and it's jaw-droppingly sexy. I would have a very hard time not buying one of those over the rest, just because it's so pretty.
The problem, of course, is that the other cars in the test had so much to offer. The F430 is not my favorite Ferrari but it drives like stink and seems to be the best overall performer. And at the same time, the Ford GT is so good-looking and such a strong contender -- especially for the price -- that it deserves strong consideration.
I told you guys before that the GT is a better proposition than the "Blue Devil" Corvette. At least JST agrees with me. :flipoff:
Jason C
07-12-2005, 09:20 AM
I told you guys before that the GT is a better proposition than the "Blue Devil" Corvette. At least JST agrees with me. :flipoff:
Bah. Blue Devil has been way overblown, IMO after more review of available evidence. They probably saw a blue Z06 that's undergoing some hot laps and thought it was something different.
C6 Z06 is already going to kick ass as it is. GM, just improve your bread and butter lineup for cryin' out loud. Save that boosted Z06 for the last year of the C6 or something like that.
I told you guys before that the GT is a better proposition than the "Blue Devil" Corvette. At least JST agrees with me. :flipoff:
I'll take the Vette.
I told you guys before that the GT is a better proposition than the "Blue Devil" Corvette. At least JST agrees with me. :flipoff:
I'll take the Vette.
I'd take a plain-Jane C6 or a Z06, too, under normal circumstances. But if I have exotic money lying around, I'm not going buy a Corvette, no matter how fancy it comes from the factory. I suspect that most exotic-money-having folks would feel the same way.
clyde
07-12-2005, 09:56 AM
It was an article on whether the Praxis suspension by itself gives you a performance improvement over the stock setup.
I don't disagree. However, on one hand they made an effort to do a comparison and went to such lengths as to put the same kind of tires on both cars and have the stock M3 aligned. Aside from the "factory specs" issue for the stock M3, I am troubled by the lack of mention about the starting alignment specs of the Praxis car. If they want to make a comparison like the one you suggest (and like I said, I agree with you on what their intent was), you can't do it halfway like they did. We all know here what kind of difference an alignment can make (at least on stock cars with adjustable ranges ;)), but from reading that article, I don't know if the Praxis car had a hot alignment or one as fuX0r3d as a "factory spec" alignment. If they were different, then the comparison is about as valid as a "I just killed a C6 with my V10 M5 on the freeway. I was going 110 and passed his sorry ass at 65 and he couldn't keep up. Long live Bangle and OHC!!!!!!" type thread.
Now, it may be that a more useful article would be "Does the Praxis suspension work on the M3, and is there any way to acheive the same thing for your M3 that the Praxis does without spending $3K, and if you are going to spend $3K, is the Praxis the best thing to buy?" That's an article I'd like to read, but it's not the article that C/D set out to write. For good reason--answering those questions in any sort of meaningful way would take a much bigger time and effort commitment than the article they did write (like locating multiple M3s with different setups, talking in depth to various BMW tuners, etc.) That's a great article for M3 owners, but probably won't sell a lot of magazines.
Rather than see a flawed comparison that ultimately tells us nothing about how they compare, I would have rather seen an article like "Praxis: What Will it do for You?" where the column inches would have been devoted to telling us about the differences between the settings on street and track, how the car felt with the different settings, how much of a pain it is to adjust it, how long adjustment takes, blah, blah, blah. rather than waste time and space jerking my chain like they did. Oh, and I'd like to know how much space it takes up in my trunk, the MTBF for the pump and compressor. A paragraph or two at the end with generalized comparisons to other options could provide (hopefully) helpful context, but no more than that.
But regardless of whether they wrote the article that they wrote, the article that you suggest or the article that I suggest, they should be doing a better job of informing and educating their readers about the issues that make this system good or bad, or even making no objective statementes at all and limiting themselves to entertaining their readers with subjective impressions ("track mode makes the car feel stiffer and it's more fun to toss around on the track while touring mode is really comfy"), rather than feeding us misleading bullshit that just isn't true.
I told you guys before that the GT is a better proposition than the "Blue Devil" Corvette. At least JST agrees with me. :flipoff:
I'll take the Vette.
Realistically, if I am one of the people lucky enough to buy a Ford GT, I'll take the Corvette for "normal" track and autocross duty AND the GT.
Actually, who am I kidding? F*ck the 'vette. I'd absolutely drive the GT every damn day, and I would take it autocrossing and to the track every chance I got.
I saw a red F430 at a stop light at Champs-Élysées, right in front of the Arc de Triomphe, there were more tourists taking pics of the F430 than the Arc, LOL! So pimp! The light turned green and it launched very quickly, sounded really cool.
Aside from the "factory specs" issue for the stock M3, I am troubled by the lack of mention about the starting alignment specs of the Praxis car.
The starting alignment doesn't even really matter as everything changes when you drop the car. Of course it turned in better with toe-out up front and I'm sure they were able to put the power down sooner with extra toe-in out back.
But if I have exotic money lying around, I'm not going buy a Corvette, no matter how fancy it comes from the factory. I suspect that most exotic-money-having folks would feel the same way.
I suspect most exotic money having folks don't necessarily want a Ford either.
But if I have exotic money lying around, I'm not going buy a Corvette, no matter how fancy it comes from the factory. I suspect that most exotic-money-having folks would feel the same way.
I suspect most exotic money having folks don't necessarily want a Ford either.
They'd rather have something as unique as the Ford than something that looks like a Vette.
But if I have exotic money lying around, I'm not going buy a Corvette, no matter how fancy it comes from the factory. I suspect that most exotic-money-having folks would feel the same way.
I suspect most exotic money having folks don't necessarily want a Ford either.
Don't need most of them--just 1500 a year. Clarkson's asininity aside, Ford hasn't had much trouble locating that many folks.
Speaking of which, did anyone note that in thecarconnection's article on the NSX, they said Honda had sold 8800 of them in the US as of June? That cannot be for the current model year, but is it really all they've sold over the past 15 years? Jebus, no wonder they are so rare.
Nick M3
07-12-2005, 11:55 AM
But if I have exotic money lying around, I'm not going buy a Corvette, no matter how fancy it comes from the factory. I suspect that most exotic-money-having folks would feel the same way.
I suspect most exotic money having folks don't necessarily want a Ford either.
Don't need most of them--just 1500 a year. Clarkson's asininity aside, Ford hasn't had much trouble locating that many folks.
Speaking of which, did anyone note that in thecarconnection's article on the NSX, they said Honda had sold 8800 of them in the US as of June? That cannot be for the current model year, but is it really all they've sold over the past 15 years? Jebus, no wonder they are so rare.
It was a revelation in 1991, and hasn't changed much since. The real question is "why would you buy one?"
They'd rather have something as unique as the Ford than something that looks like a Vette.Eh, the GT looks too derivative to me. I guess I just don't get this retro craze.
It was a revelation in 1991, and hasn't changed much since. The real question is "why would you buy one?"
At its current price, I can't think of a good reason. Unless all you cared about was driving something uncommon. But in the current sea of high performance cars, it's really pretty mediocre anymore.
Jason C
07-12-2005, 12:51 PM
It was a revelation in 1991, and hasn't changed much since. The real question is "why would you buy one?"
At its current price, I can't think of a good reason. Unless all you cared about was driving something uncommon. But in the current sea of high performance cars, it's really pretty mediocre anymore.
Used ones are decent, though. But $1,500 for a clutch kit? Ouch... :nono:
Used ones are decent, though. But $1,500 for a clutch kit? Ouch... :nono:
I'll bet there are aftermarket kits that cost less. That must be the dealer price?
Used ones are decent, though. But $1,500 for a clutch kit? Ouch... :nono:
I'll bet there are aftermarket kits that cost less. That must be the dealer price?
Why would the aftermarket produce a kit for less than 8800 units sold (many of the NSXs were slushies, in any event)?
Not sure what global production is, but I bet it isn't more than two or three times the total US number, if that.
Used ones are decent, though. But $1,500 for a clutch kit? Ouch... :nono:
I'll bet there are aftermarket kits that cost less. That must be the dealer price?
Why would the aftermarket produce a kit for less than 8800 units sold (many of the NSXs were slushies, in any event)?
Not sure what global production is, but I bet it isn't more than two or three times the total US number, if that.
Niche cars like that can have aftermarket support. Just don't expect aftermarket prices to be cheaper than OE.
There's a CNN.com article covering an extended test drive in a new GT.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/carreviews/07/11/ford_gt/index.html
As such, today's Ford GT is a largely theoretical proposition. Like the original, this version is designed for a world with no serial slowpokes, no speed limits and definitely no bridge abutments. Surround every federal highway with giant mounds of crash-absorbing yogurt, and everyone should drive a Ford GT.
...
At every stop along the way, people of all ages and stations approached the car to express appreciation -- not least for the Ford's heritage and status as an American exotic.
I felt a warmth and sincerity there that I haven't always experienced in a Ferrari or the like, cars that -- for all their greatness -- cause some to avert their eyes and others to privately mock the driver's ostentation.
clyde
07-12-2005, 07:24 PM
Care to point out some of those inaccuracies? I'm really curious now.
Now that I do have it front of me...
Written as a secondary reason for increased lateral G on the skidpad at the lowest setting:Also the tilted tires are squared up to the road, yielding a larger contact patch.
Anyone care to explain to me why this is a fundemental truth, as it suggests that it is? Yeah, that's right, you can't becuase it is far from it in a number of places. First, tilting tires does not necessarily "square them up" to the road. In fact, if you go from 0º static camber to anything negative, you are actually unsquaring them from the road. If the car has lousy camber control, like an M3 or WRX/STi, adding negative camber will get you closer to "square" dynamically...to a point...but even that's not the ideal the statement suggests. But that's not the juicy part.
The part that I really want to sink my teeth into is the "larger contact patch" bullshit. Adding or removing camber does nothing to change the size of the contact patch. The size of a tire's contact patch is dictated by the force acting on it, in other words, the weight bearing down on it. Increase weight, and the size of the patch increases. Decrease weight, the size decreases. That's it. Camber does nothing to change the size of tire's contact patch. Camber will change the shape of the patch (which necessarily includes how the load is spread across the tire's surface), and that is important, but it has nothing to do with the size of the patch.
The stock M3 is pretty good in this regard [lag time between turning the steering wheel and the car responding]
Do I really need to start ranting about this, or is just pointing it out enough? In fact, doesn't that tell us all we need to know about Mr. Webster's credibility?
All the rest would just be expansion on what I wrote earlier going into more excruciating detail.
Care to point out some of those inaccuracies? I'm really curious now.
Now that I do have it front of me...
Written as a secondary reason for increased lateral G on the skidpad at the lowest setting:Also the tilted tires are squared up to the road, yielding a larger contact patch.
Anyone care to explain to me why this is a fundemental truth, as it suggests that it is? Yeah, that's right, you can't becuase it is far from it in a number of places. First, tilting tires does not necessarily "square them up" to the road. In fact, if you go from 0º static camber to anything negative, you are actually unsquaring them from the road. If the car has lousy camber control, like an M3 or WRX/STi, adding negative camber will get you closer to "square" dynamically...to a point...but even that's not the ideal the statement suggests. But that's not the juicy part.
The part that I really want to sink my teeth into is the "larger contact patch" bullshit. Adding or removing camber does nothing to change the size of the contact patch. The size of a tire's contact patch is dictated by the force acting on it, in other words, the weight bearing down on it. Increase weight, and the size of the patch increases. Decrease weight, the size decreases. That's it. Camber does nothing to change the size of tire's contact patch. Camber will change the shape of the patch (which necessarily includes how the load is spread across the tire's surface), and that is important, but it has nothing to do with the size of the patch.
The stock M3 is pretty good in this regard [lag time between turning the steering wheel and the car responding]
Do I really need to start ranting about this, or is just pointing it out enough? In fact, doesn't that tell us all we need to know about Mr. Webster's credibility?
All the rest would just be expansion on what I wrote earlier going into more excruciating detail.
The M3 is "pretty good" about steering feel--it's not exceptional, and next to an RX-8 it feels sluggish. But compared to many, many other cars out there the steering feel/steering response on the M3 is crisp and, yes, "pretty good."
That's not such an egregious flaw, especially since the point was that, as a baseline mark the stock M3 is pretty good, but the Praxis car is better.
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
I think you're right about the intention of the author's comments. Although clyde's comment on contact patch staying the same size under the forces of latergal G's make perfect sense. And is something that adds good value to the conversation.
clyde
07-12-2005, 11:15 PM
The M3 is "pretty good" about steering feel--it's not exceptional, and next to an RX-8 it feels sluggish. But compared to many, many other cars out there the steering feel/steering response on the M3 is crisp and, yes, "pretty good."
compared to "sports cars" I disagree
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
I didn't miss his point at all. I don't understand why he couldn't have said what he meant, though. But what he meant to say was still wrong, and that was part of my point.
lemming
07-12-2005, 11:15 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ford GT.
whatever. it's gone head to head now twice in two indy articles against the F430 and lost --pretty handily.
....i still like the bareknuckle basics approach of the corvette. less pretense, relatively speaking. suits my preferences better --not exactly giving up any speed, either.
if i'm going to drop a suitcase of cash on a car that's over 150k, it's the ferrari.
clyde
07-12-2005, 11:17 PM
if i'm going to drop a suitcase of cash on a car that's over 150k, it's the ferrari.
Why?
lemming
07-12-2005, 11:29 PM
if i'm going to drop a suitcase of cash on a car that's over 150k, it's the ferrari.
Why?
isn't it obvious, from what i've opined before?
the Ford GT is a halo car that is a purely marketing exercise. to me, it's an expensive VW New Beetle.
the F430 has mechanical items that are truly race-sourced and it has a wonderful degree of engineering put into the car. it truly is an exotic car in the way it is designed, engineered and executed.
paying the equivalent sum of money for the Ford GT is ludicrous to me because it's got nothing on the c6z06 except this "heritage" throwback emotional catchiness --well, all i have to do is tune into ALMS racing and i get my emotional tug. it's purely preference, but it has some objective substance behind it.
The M3 is "pretty good" about steering feel--it's not exceptional, and next to an RX-8 it feels sluggish. But compared to many, many other cars out there the steering feel/steering response on the M3 is crisp and, yes, "pretty good."
compared to "sports cars" I disagree
Oh, sweet jesus.
What's a "sports car?" Do we have to have that debate again? Can we just stipulate that the M3 isn't a sports car, that some "sports cars" have better steering feel (though some most assured don't), but that for a grand touring car the M3's steering feel is "pretty good?"
I can rattle off a list of 2 dozen cars that have poorer steering feel and response than the M3. I can think of any number of "performance" or "grand touring" cars that the M3 puts on the trailer, from the Volvo S60R to the Mercedes (insert any letter/number combo here) AMG to the Saab 9-3 Viggen, to the 9-5 Aero, to the E39 540, to the E39 M5, to the Mustang GT (any year), to the Mustang Cobra (any year), to the Pontiac GTO, to the Infiniti G35...
It's pointless, really.
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
I didn't miss his point at all. I don't understand why he couldn't have said what he meant, though. But what he meant to say was still wrong, and that was part of my point.
Now you are being almost as cryptic as bonoboy. Why was what he intended to say wrong, assuming that a car magazine (unlike, e.g., a contract) doesn't have to be riddled with caveats and footnotes that cover any potential contingency and can instead speak in broad, general terms?
lemming
07-12-2005, 11:52 PM
The M3 is "pretty good" about steering feel--it's not exceptional, and next to an RX-8 it feels sluggish. But compared to many, many other cars out there the steering feel/steering response on the M3 is crisp and, yes, "pretty good."
compared to "sports cars" I disagree
Oh, sweet jesus.
What's a "sports car?" Do we have to have that debate again? Can we just stipulate that the M3 isn't a sports car, that some "sports cars" have better steering feel (though some most assured don't), but that for a grand touring car the M3's steering feel is "pretty good?"
I can rattle off a list of 2 dozen cars that have poorer steering feel and response than the M3. I can think of any number of "performance" or "grand touring" cars that the M3 puts on the trailer, from the Volvo S60R to the Mercedes (insert any letter/number combo here) AMG to the Saab 9-3 Viggen, to the 9-5 Aero, to the E39 540, to the E39 M5, to the Mustang GT (any year), to the Mustang Cobra (any year), to the Pontiac GTO, to the Infiniti G35...
It's pointless, really.
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
I didn't miss his point at all. I don't understand why he couldn't have said what he meant, though. But what he meant to say was still wrong, and that was part of my point.
Now you are being almost as cryptic as bonoboy. Why was what he intended to say wrong, assuming that a car magazine (unlike, e.g., a contract) doesn't have to be riddled with caveats and footnotes that cover any potential contingency and can instead speak in broad, general terms?
you 2 guys arguing is like watching the two old curmudgeons from the muppets go at each other.
if i'm going to drop a suitcase of cash on a car that's over 150k, it's the ferrari.
Why?
isn't it obvious, from what i've opined before?
the Ford GT is a halo car that is a purely marketing exercise. to me, it's an expensive VW New Beetle.
the F430 has mechanical items that are truly race-sourced and it has a wonderful degree of engineering put into the car. it truly is an exotic car in the way it is designed, engineered and executed.
paying the equivalent sum of money for the Ford GT is ludicrous to me because it's got nothing on the c6z06 except this "heritage" throwback emotional catchiness --well, all i have to do is tune into ALMS racing and i get my emotional tug. it's purely preference, but it has some objective substance behind it.
I'm perhaps feeling particularly ornery tonight, but this really bugs me. What technology in the F430 is "truly race-sourced?" Why does the GT lack racing heritage? Is it because of Ford's lack of success racing? It's failure to win Le Mans? It's failure to compete in Formula One successfully? It's failure to win at Indy? It's failure to win in Trans Am racing? Or maybe because it's never successfully raced and won on oval tracks, road courses, hill climbs, rallys, off-road racing, and every other kind of truck or car based motorsport that people have ever come up with?
Wait, no. It's done all those things.
Perhaps it's because Saleen and Roush, the people Ford hired to help engineer and build the GT, don't have any racing history.
Wait, that can't be it, either.
Maybe it's because SVT, who also helped engineer the GT, don't have any experience building racing cars. Never mind that SVE and a group called Ford, er, Racing are inextricably linked.
Yeah. Ford is a company with no racing heritage. It's engineers, suppliers and consultants have no experience engineering or building racing cars. The GT, which has a better power to weight ratio than the F430 and is faster both in a straight line AND AROUND A ROAD COURSE is clearly a marketing exercise akin to a rebodied VW Golf.
Excuse me, but :lol:
clyde
07-13-2005, 12:08 AM
compared to "sports cars" I disagree
Oh, sweet jesus.
What's a "sports car?" Do we have to have that debate again?
Uh, I guess that didn't come across as I meant it to either. "Sports cars" in quotes like that meant to refer to any cars that could possibly be considered performance cars by a reasonable person. So, broadest definition possible as opposed to a narrow, purist one. Sorry for the confusion.
The tire contact patch point is valid, but I think you're missing his point on squaring up the tire. I think what he's saying is that adding negative camber tends to square up the tire *when the car is turning.* Yes, he doesn't say this clearly, but I think that's what he means. And of course this statement isn't always true, since it depends on the camber setting, the cornering force, blah blah. But as a general rule of thumb, it's not a bad point, at least in my limited understanding of such things.
I didn't miss his point at all. I don't understand why he couldn't have said what he meant, though. But what he meant to say was still wrong, and that was part of my point.
Now you are being almost as cryptic as bonoboy. Why was what he intended to say wrong, assuming that a car magazine (unlike, e.g., a contract) doesn't have to be riddled with caveats and footnotes that cover any potential contingency and can instead speak in broad, general terms?
In broad general terms, what he said was false and misleading. The tires are not squared up at rest. Making them square with the surface under lateral load, which is what we agree is what he meant to say, is still not what you want. I can give you a detailed explantion why it's not what you want or I can leave it as is like Mr. Webster would have. Have a preference?
clyde
07-13-2005, 12:16 AM
if i'm going to drop a suitcase of cash on a car that's over 150k, it's the ferrari.
Why?
isn't it obvious, from what i've opined before?
Yeah.
For my $150k, I'm going ot buy the car that appeals to me emotionally...because there's no way that I'm spending that kind of money without a real emotional connection to the car. The GT does it for me. Not much else new in that price range (or above) does. I don't give a fuck where it comes from or what kind of history some part in it has or not. T he thing is wicked fast and quick (once you reach some level of acceleration, it doesn't really matter any more). And it's sexy as hell. Looking at it makes my dick hard. That's what will get my money.
John V
07-13-2005, 07:17 AM
Looking at it makes my dick hard. That's what will get my money.
And... we're clear.
In broad general terms, what he said was false and misleading. The tires are not squared up at rest. Making them square with the surface under lateral load, which is what we agree is what he meant to say, is still not what you want. I can give you a detailed explantion why it's not what you want or I can leave it as is like Mr. Webster would have. Have a preference?
Lay it on me.
clyde
07-13-2005, 09:58 AM
In broad general terms, what he said was false and misleading. The tires are not squared up at rest. Making them square with the surface under lateral load, which is what we agree is what he meant to say, is still not what you want. I can give you a detailed explantion why it's not what you want or I can leave it as is like Mr. Webster would have. Have a preference?
Lay it on me.
Camber thrust. To make this more interactice and exciting, please do the following two experiments:
1) Take a pencil with an unused eraser out and press the eraser part against your desk holding the pencil vertically. While loading the pencil by pressing it on the desk, drage it around. Note the resistance. Now, tilt the pencil 30 degrees to the side and while applying the same downward force, push the pencil in the direction that is opposite to the angle that the pencil is tilted. Note the level of resistance. Now, move the pencil in the same direction of the tilt angle. Not the level of resistance. It's the same thing with tires.
(Some eraser/surface combos demonstrate this better than others, which is one of the reason for experiment number two.)
2) take a coin from your pocket, or steal one from a coworker. Roll it on your desk. If/when the coin starts to lean to one side, what happens to the coin's path of travel? If it leans to the left, it starts to roll to the left, yes? Lean to the right, path curves to the right, yes? It's the same thing with tires.
Now, this isn't an experiment, but a visualization exercise. Please think for a moment about tire stagger (from side to side). It's not something that you will usually see on a car setup for a road course, but, if the rules allow it, you will usually see it on a car set up for an oval or circle track. The outside tires will be sized with a larger diameter than the inside tires. Like the path of a rolling cone on the floor will always describe a circle with the center point on the side of the smaller diameter, the car with staggered tires will want to turn in that directiona s well. Adding negative camber to a tire does the same thing on a much, much smaller scale.
So, what's the common thread? When the body is leaning in one direction, the body wants to move in that direction and resists movement in the other direction. Going back a few posts, we know that the contact patch size is dictated by the load placed on the tire. Because of this, as weight transfers away from the inside over to the outside, the outisde tire's contact patch grows while the inside patch shrinks. Thus, the camber of the inside tire becomes less important while the camber of the outside corner becomes more important.
As weight transfers to the outside, the body rolls and the outside suspension compresses. Through the suspension and body movement, the dynamic camber of the tire may change. Some suspension designs are very good in that they promote additional negative camber and others are bad as the movement promotes positive camber. Still others can allow for a perfect up down articulation without altering camber at all.
Through everything, though, nearly all cars will lose at least some of that negative camber when they turn. The way that this is usually compensated for is by running additional static negative camber, so when it loses some, it isn't losing it all. And why don't we want to lose all of the negative camber?
(In some of the examples, there are also gyroscopic forces at work as well that go beyond camber thrust. Although they have quite an impact on bicycles and motorcycles, the gyroscopic effects are minimal on cars.)
Jason C
07-13-2005, 11:10 AM
So why don't you write to their backfires department?
If all of the previous is valid, you should be able to get a good response from Mr. Webster himself.
In broad general terms, what he said was false and misleading. The tires are not squared up at rest. Making them square with the surface under lateral load, which is what we agree is what he meant to say, is still not what you want. I can give you a detailed explantion why it's not what you want or I can leave it as is like Mr. Webster would have. Have a preference?
Lay it on me.
Camber thrust. To make this more interactice and exciting, please do the following two experiments:
1) Take a pencil with an unused eraser out and press the eraser part against your desk holding the pencil vertically. While loading the pencil by pressing it on the desk, drage it around. Note the resistance. Now, tilt the pencil 30 degrees to the side and while applying the same downward force, push the pencil in the direction that is opposite to the angle that the pencil is tilted. Note the level of resistance. Now, move the pencil in the same direction of the tilt angle. Not the level of resistance. It's the same thing with tires.
(Some eraser/surface combos demonstrate this better than others, which is one of the reason for experiment number two.)
2) take a coin from your pocket, or steal one from a coworker. Roll it on your desk. If/when the coin starts to lean to one side, what happens to the coin's path of travel? If it leans to the left, it starts to roll to the left, yes? Lean to the right, path curves to the right, yes? It's the same thing with tires.
Now, this isn't an experiment, but a visualization exercise. Please think for a moment about tire stagger (from side to side). It's not something that you will usually see on a car setup for a road course, but, if the rules allow it, you will usually see it on a car set up for an oval or circle track. The outside tires will be sized with a larger diameter than the inside tires. Like the path of a rolling cone on the floor will always describe a circle with the center point on the side of the smaller diameter, the car with staggered tires will want to turn in that directiona s well. Adding negative camber to a tire does the same thing on a much, much smaller scale.
So, what's the common thread? When the body is leaning in one direction, the body wants to move in that direction and resists movement in the other direction. Going back a few posts, we know that the contact patch size is dictated by the load placed on the tire. Because of this, as weight transfers away from the inside over to the outside, the outisde tire's contact patch grows while the inside patch shrinks. Thus, the camber of the inside tire becomes less important while the camber of the outside corner becomes more important.
As weight transfers to the outside, the body rolls and the outside suspension compresses. Through the suspension and body movement, the dynamic camber of the tire may change. Some suspension designs are very good in that they promote additional negative camber and others are bad as the movement promotes positive camber. Still others can allow for a perfect up down articulation without altering camber at all.
Through everything, though, nearly all cars will lose at least some of that negative camber when they turn. The way that this is usually compensated for is by running additional static negative camber, so when it loses some, it isn't losing it all. And why don't we want to lose all of the negative camber?
(In some of the examples, there are also gyroscopic forces at work as well that go beyond camber thrust. Although they have quite an impact on bicycles and motorcycles, the gyroscopic effects are minimal on cars.)
Cool, thanks.
Though it's worth noting that your cogent (and concise) explanation of what actually happens is about as long as Webster's whole article.
clyde
07-13-2005, 12:26 PM
I can give you a detailed explantion why it's not what you want or I can leave it as is like Mr. Webster would have. Have a preference?
Lay it on me.
Camber thrust....
Cool, thanks.
Though it's worth noting that your cogent (and concise) explanation of what actually happens is about as long as Webster's whole article.
If instead of saying, "Also the tilted tires are squared up to the road, yielding a larger contact patch," Webster had said, "Also, the resulting additional negative camber makes the car more eager to turn," we wouldn't be having this discussion (the other items previously discussed notwithstanding).
A product review in a mainstream mag like C&D isn't the place for getting into something as esoteric about why stuff works the way it does. Using overly simplistic explanations and generalities are perfectly appropriate in that context, even if they leave the pleathora of caveats and exceptions unmentioned, so long as the basic statements are generally true and correct. In this case, they were neither.
And you did choose the detailed explanation (even if what I wrote was still rather simplified) of why his statement was wrong.
lemming
07-13-2005, 05:21 PM
i'm not discounting your opinions as it would be your money, but from my perspective, i would be hard pressed to buy a Ford GT because as has already been demonstrated, operating on a slim budget and rushing it to market and then closing down the tooling for it leaves me with a nagging feeling.
that the car has been underdeveloped is pretty obvious from the need to pour oil-leak-stop into some engines as well as some control arms.
but back to my preference: i easily justify the price of an F430 because it comes not only in the plain jane vanilla variant but also the stradale challenge variant as well as it is an actively raced vehicle both by privateers as well as factory backed teams. sure, you could argue --that's sort of indirect racing translation, but i beg to differ. they start to see engine issues, be it overheating or oil starvation, in the race cars, they are such a small outfit that those running changes also show up in the street cars. same for the brakes, suspension and transmission. it's not really that much of a stretch to see how lessons learned from factory racing efforts of the modena challenge car or the F360Rs or the C6-Rs translate back to the street cars.
my main issue with the Ford GT is that all or most of its appeal is based on paying homage to a car in the past. 911s do that, but you can also buy a GT3 --my objection dies down. if they only sold 997s in base versions and charged $150k for them, yeah, i'd raise plenty of objections to them. but they don't. they only charge $100k for them and it's basically a turn key racecar. the C6z06 will be a little removed from that, but it has the same chassis & same block as the C6R.
a lot about the price of these cars is about exclusivity --but i need a little more to justify the cost and it's far easier for me to break it down into objective, quantifiable guidelines. the Ford GT is just like all of the lambo's to me. they're nice enough, but i would never buy either and if someone were to ask me for car advice, i would point them back to Porsche or Ferrari if the bowtie badge is too declasse for their tastes.
and as far as your last thrust, JeSTer, i'm not undermining the knowledge base of SVT at all --but i would argue that the mustang is more viable to me in its highest street form, most likely the GT500 because Ford actually races the mustang in Grand Am races........
Jason C
07-13-2005, 07:02 PM
that the car has been underdeveloped is pretty obvious from the need to pour oil-leak-stop into some engines
Actually, they used something called a Speedi-Sleeve. Not a very fitting thing for such an expensive and hyped car, but then again they work, so other makes can consider their useage for oil leaks - like Porsche, for example. :stickpoke:
i'm not discounting your opinions as it would be your money, but from my perspective, i would be hard pressed to buy a Ford GT because as has already been demonstrated, operating on a slim budget and rushing it to market and then closing down the tooling for it leaves me with a nagging feeling.
that the car has been underdeveloped is pretty obvious from the need to pour oil-leak-stop into some engines as well as some control arms.
but back to my preference: i easily justify the price of an F430 because it comes not only in the plain jane vanilla variant but also the stradale challenge variant as well as it is an actively raced vehicle both by privateers as well as factory backed teams. sure, you could argue --that's sort of indirect racing translation, but i beg to differ. they start to see engine issues, be it overheating or oil starvation, in the race cars, they are such a small outfit that those running changes also show up in the street cars. same for the brakes, suspension and transmission. it's not really that much of a stretch to see how lessons learned from factory racing efforts of the modena challenge car or the F360Rs or the C6-Rs translate back to the street cars.
You will never, ever convince me that anything to do with maintenance or durability is a reason to actually choose a Ferrari. Having a few rich guys with blow-dried chest hair "racing" the Ferraris in single marque series doesn't exactly translate into compelling technology transfer, IMHO. And if you think that Ferraris don't suffer from the same kinds of issues that BMWs (blown bearings), Porsches (blown RMS) and Fords (control arm issues) do, you are dreaming. If, in fact, these problems don't show up its because the freaking things need to have their engines rebuilt after a few thousand miles and tend to have owners who don't blink when the mech comes back and says hey, you need a $15,000 brake job.
The C6-R, I'll give you, has more direct racing transfer.
my main issue with the Ford GT is that all or most of its appeal is based on paying homage to a car in the past.
Most of its appeal has to do with the fact that its faster than fuck. It also looks good. I could give a shit whether it pays homage to the GT40.
911s do that, but you can also buy a GT3 --my objection dies down. if they only sold 997s in base versions and charged $150k for them, yeah, i'd raise plenty of objections to them. but they don't. they only charge $100k for them and it's basically a turn key racecar. the C6z06 will be a little removed from that, but it has the same chassis & same block as the C6R.
a lot about the price of these cars is about exclusivity --but i need a little more to justify the cost and it's far easier for me to break it down into objective, quantifiable guidelines. the Ford GT is just like all of the lambo's to me. they're nice enough, but i would never buy either and if someone were to ask me for car advice, i would point them back to Porsche or Ferrari if the bowtie badge is too declasse for their tastes.
The Lambo ate its clutch after two acceleration runs. You might scoff at the GT's styling, but look at the performance--it speaks for itself. The GT doesn't have to apologize to any car on the road. It's barely slower in a straight line than the Enzo and Carrera GT. Judging the GT harshly because it looks like a 40 year old racing car is the same as refusing to buy a G35 because it's ugly. It has nothing to do with the car or its performance; it's only to do with styling.
and as far as your last thrust, JeSTer, i'm not undermining the knowledge base of SVT at all --but i would argue that the mustang is more viable to me in its highest street form, most likely the GT500 because Ford actually races the mustang in Grand Am races........
Maybe someone will race a GT. Who knows? The McLaren F1 was built to be the ultimate street car. It was never intended to race. The fact that it dominated when it was raced was a byproduct of sound design, but whether the car was ever raced would not have changed anything about its design or its desirability. Same with the GT.
Honestly, if you concede that the guys that design and built the GT know how to race, and you concede (as you must) that the GT's performance is simply superlative given its price point (C6 Z06 notwithstanding), the fact that Ford doesn't actually enter the cars in a race series seems irrelevant.
lemming
07-13-2005, 10:40 PM
but the fact is: the ford GT life is going to be so short, it will never be raced.
and because of that reason and because it was not developed in lockstep with an active, ongoing race program like the GT3, the z06 or the modenas, it has very little interest to me as a serious car buyer.
the question was: why do i scoff at cars such as the Ford GT and the lambos. i answered it and you seem to agree that if that is my basis for decision making, it's not far off base. i'm not doubting the competence of the SVT team at all --what i'm doubting is how much of Ford's resources they put into the Ford GT. cynical? yeah. but i'd like to know where else they cheaped out on a car that lists for $149k. a durability program is a lot different from a racing program. the z06 underwent both in the c6 generation. so doesn't the GT3 and so doesn't the modena cars. i'm never said owning a ferrari is cheap or that they don't have mechanical failures. what i'm alluding to is the fact that there is a lot more theoretical as well as practical engineering in these cars; the Ford GT just has a lot of theoretical engineering because the car hasn't been subjected to the rigors of racing.
that isn't important to you and clyde, it is important to me --why would i want a $149k poseur mobile? that much money, i'd like as close to the real thing i can get.
lemming
07-13-2005, 10:58 PM
one more thought about the Ford GT: its performance is superlative indeed, espeically since the supercharger eats 100hp at max power. this should open up a new debate about engines and execution.
in this exotic car debate, execution is interesting. for example, they noted serious, serious heat soak with the SL65. bad enough to cause the car to basically go into limp home mode. the aston is underwhelming (aren't they all?) and the lambo may be considered an exotic by some.....but not me. the 911 turbo cab is a complete joke and it did really well considering its weight. so that leaves the F430 and the Ford GT.
both are OHC designs.
the Ford GT performance is not in question here --it's the execution i'm curious about. why, for example, did they choose to go with supercharging, especially the most parasitic kind here, and not displacement?
one more thought about the Ford GT: its performance is superlative indeed, espeically since the supercharger eats 100hp at max power. this should open up a new debate about engines and execution.
in this exotic car debate, execution is interesting. for example, they noted serious, serious heat soak with the SL65. bad enough to cause the car to basically go into limp home mode. the aston is underwhelming (aren't they all?) and the lambo may be considered an exotic by some.....but not me. the 911 turbo cab is a complete joke and it did really well considering its weight. so that leaves the F430 and the Ford GT.
both are OHC designs.
the Ford GT performance is not in question here --it's the execution i'm curious about. why, for example, did they choose to go with supercharging, especially the most parasitic kind here, and not displacement?
That was the engine they had available? It gives marketing tie to the other engines in Ford's (and especially SVT's) line? Probably a little bit of both.
lemming
07-13-2005, 11:34 PM
one more thought about the Ford GT: its performance is superlative indeed, espeically since the supercharger eats 100hp at max power. this should open up a new debate about engines and execution.
in this exotic car debate, execution is interesting. for example, they noted serious, serious heat soak with the SL65. bad enough to cause the car to basically go into limp home mode. the aston is underwhelming (aren't they all?) and the lambo may be considered an exotic by some.....but not me. the 911 turbo cab is a complete joke and it did really well considering its weight. so that leaves the F430 and the Ford GT.
both are OHC designs.
the Ford GT performance is not in question here --it's the execution i'm curious about. why, for example, did they choose to go with supercharging, especially the most parasitic kind here, and not displacement?
That was the engine they had available? It gives marketing tie to the other engines in Ford's (and especially SVT's) line? Probably a little bit of both.
and this same engine will be "detuned" and used in the GT500.
it's yet another demerit for a car that weighs 3500 pounds and costs $149,000 USD (if you're lucky enough to pay MSRP).
clyde
07-14-2005, 09:01 AM
but the fact is: the ford GT life is going to be so short, it will never be raced.
and because of that reason and because it was not developed in lockstep with an active, ongoing race program like the GT3, the z06 or the modenas, it has very little interest to me as a serious car buyer.
Can you take a step back from your position to look at this statement objectively? If you are able to, can you honestly tell me that there is a functional difference between that statement and Stuka's dry sump position or Hack's BMW V10 is the beallendall of engine design?
the question was: why do i scoff at cars such as the Ford GT and the lambos. i answered it and you seem to agree that if that is my basis for decision making, it's not far off base.
Scoff at anything you please, you don't need permission from the rest fo the epanut gallery. Just don't be surprised if/when sections of that peanut gallery mock the decision when it's made though ill-founded specualtion, conjecture and predjudice...or at the very least, one that is just as subjective and emotional as basing the decision on styling, but still less honest becuase it's wrapped in a falsely presented veneer of objectivity.
i'm not doubting the competence of the SVT team at all --what i'm doubting is how much of Ford's resources they put into the Ford GT. cynical? yeah. but i'd like to know where else they cheaped out on a car that lists for $149k. a durability program is a lot different from a racing program. the z06 underwent both in the c6 generation. so doesn't the GT3 and so doesn't the modena cars. i'm never said owning a ferrari is cheap or that they don't have mechanical failures. what i'm alluding to is the fact that there is a lot more theoretical as well as practical engineering in these cars; the Ford GT just has a lot of theoretical engineering because the car hasn't been subjected to the rigors of racing.
Show me a race car that doesn't break and I'll show you a car that doesn't get raced. It's that simple.
The GT has suffered from some issues that can be traced, at least partially, to the way that Ford builds cars. There is a limit to how accountable you can hold Ford for parts fabrication by their suppliers. Yeah, Ford holds the bag in the end, but when their suppliers don't build the parts to spec, it's not Ford's fault for doing a poor job on designing the part. Blame the beancounters for sending the job to the lowest bidder, but don't suggest that SVT is wallowing in theory. Do you really think that they didn't tap their racing experiences with other cars? That if Ford corporate isn't racing a certain car that no Ford employees are involved in racing of any kind?
that isn't important to you and clyde, it is important to me --why would i want a $149k poseur mobile? that much money, i'd like as close to the real thing i can get.
If it's not a real race car, then by definition, all of the cars being talked about are poseur mobiles, since, as you said, they aren't the "real thing."
What I don't understand is this...if you want a race car, why don't you buy a race car? Autoweek classifieds are filled with ads for real race cars week after week, most with asking prices considerably less than $149k. And they come with spares too (race cars break, remember?). If a real race car is not what you want, then why try to create a tangible and objective link where only an imaginary and emotional one exists? I mean, what does getting "as close to the real thing" get you? Evenings at Club Trendy asking all the chiquitas, "Hey baby, wanna go for a ride in my race derived $149k car?" until you find one shallow enough to say yes?
one more thought about the Ford GT: its performance is superlative indeed, espeically since the supercharger eats 100hp at max power. this should open up a new debate about engines and execution.
in this exotic car debate, execution is interesting. for example, they noted serious, serious heat soak with the SL65. bad enough to cause the car to basically go into limp home mode. the aston is underwhelming (aren't they all?) and the lambo may be considered an exotic by some.....but not me. the 911 turbo cab is a complete joke and it did really well considering its weight. so that leaves the F430 and the Ford GT.
both are OHC designs.
the Ford GT performance is not in question here --it's the execution i'm curious about. why, for example, did they choose to go with supercharging, especially the most parasitic kind here, and not displacement?
That was the engine they had available? It gives marketing tie to the other engines in Ford's (and especially SVT's) line? Probably a little bit of both.
and this same engine will be "detuned" and used in the GT500.
it's yet another demerit for a car that weighs 3500 pounds and costs $149,000 USD (if you're lucky enough to pay MSRP).
The engine in the Shelby is "derived from" the engine in the GT, but it's not right to say that it's just detuned. The Shelby engine has an iron block and a wet sump, rather than the aluminum block and dry sump in the GT. The Shelby will also use a different type of supercharger. They have the same heads and throttle body (I think), have the same bore spacing, and the same overall displacement, but they aren't the same engine by a long shot.
Does the F430 get a demerit for sharing its engine with various "cheap" Maseratis?
Does the Gallardo get half a demerit because half of its engine sits under the hood of nearly every new Jetta?
Does the Aston get a demerit because half of its engine sits under the hood of various Mazdas, Fords and Jaguars?
Does the Z06 get a demerit because something like its engine is sold in everything from the Pontiac Bonneville to the Chevy Tahoe?
And, as clyde says above, when you take a step back how is this criticism any different from arguing that the Z06 (or the GT) uses a "truck" engine? It's the same argument in both cases--association with something plebian makes the exotic somehow less exotic. In the case of any of the above cars, it just doesn't wash.
lemming
07-14-2005, 09:47 AM
ah, but to elicit the mocking of said peanut gallery is actually flattery in this forum!
:)
it's an opinion. just as simple as your opinions that you'd buy the car at its price, mine differs. and i divulged my own logic.
what does it really matter to you guys, other than you think my logic is that flawed, or does my logic undermine the sanctity of your desire for the car?
you basically rephrased my points for me, rather succinctly.
a few key points:
racing cars break. absolutely they do, in fact, they're not made with durability (over several races) in mind. my point, which you help me make, however, is that the rigors of racing supplements standard manufacturer durability testing. when i think about plopping down a bank check for any car over 100k, i wonder if i want to buy the car made using low cost bidder phenomena or pay a little more for something that has a little bit more engineering and racing input into it? your arguments really still do not undermine this point. it's not that racing validates a car as much as it supplements a car's development. my viewpoint is that if i opt to pay for an expensive race car, why wouldn't i get the one that has the most development put into it instead of the rush job that is the Ford GT?
next. yeah. the ferrari engines do get some demerits for having their engines go into maseratis. i would be unthrilled about that if i were a ferrari owner. but there is a key difference here: to gain entrez into a maserati is 100k these days. i feel less badly about sharing an engine with another expensive car than i would a car that costs 1/5 the price of my car (comparing Ford GT to Ford Mustang).
next. the beauty of the chevy smallblock is its longevity and that it has seen broad applications. but, unlike the Ford GT or any other car, there a very little pretense that the corvette is anything other than a fibreglass car with a big v8 stuffed into it. that has been its history. and you know what? that doesn't bother me. i don't really care if the corvette v8 is shared with the CTS_V or a truck because at its pricepoint, nothing is faster. and the LS7 is quite a far stretch from a truck engine, but you know that. but you and clyde both support my argument.
no one thinks the corvette, even the vaunted c6 z06 is an exotic car. and i'd never pretend it was. again, your arguments to assail my position and my car choices buttress my argument. they are exactly the points i make and exactly why i laugh every day i drive to work in either LS6 powered car. it's an awful thing to not drive an exotic but be as fast as one during the commute to work.
the Ford GT is being classified as such, and i really don't think it is. you guys, once you get beyond your lust for the Ford GT, actually agree with me, but you just don't see it yet.
ah, but to elicit the mocking of said peanut gallery is actually flattery in this forum!
:)
it's an opinion. just as simple as your opinions that you'd buy the car at its price, mine differs. and i divulged my own logic.
what does it really matter to you guys, other than you think my logic is that flawed, or does my logic undermine the sanctity of your desire for the car?
you basically rephrased my points for me, rather succinctly.
a few key points:
racing cars break. absolutely they do, in fact, they're not made with durability (over several races) in mind. my point, which you help me make, however, is that the rigors of racing supplements standard manufacturer durability testing. when i think about plopping down a bank check for any car over 100k, i wonder if i want to buy the car made using low cost bidder phenomena or pay a little more for something that has a little bit more engineering and racing input into it? your arguments really still do not undermine this point. it's not that racing validates a car as much as it supplements a car's development. my viewpoint is that if i opt to pay for an expensive race car, why wouldn't i get the one that has the most development put into it instead of the rush job that is the Ford GT?
next. yeah. the ferrari engines do get some demerits for having their engines go into maseratis. i would be unthrilled about that if i were a ferrari owner. but there is a key difference here: to gain entrez into a maserati is 100k these days. i feel less badly about sharing an engine with another expensive car than i would a car that costs 1/5 the price of my car (comparing Ford GT to Ford Mustang).
next. the beauty of the chevy smallblock is its longevity and that it has seen broad applications. but, unlike the Ford GT or any other car, there a very little pretense that the corvette is anything other than a fibreglass car with a big v8 stuffed into it. that has been its history. and you know what? that doesn't bother me. i don't really care if the corvette v8 is shared with the CTS_V or a truck because at its pricepoint, nothing is faster. and the LS7 is quite a far stretch from a truck engine, but you know that. but you and clyde both support my argument.
no one thinks the corvette, even the vaunted c6 z06 is an exotic car. and i'd never pretend it was. again, your arguments to assail my position and my car choices buttress my argument. they are exactly the points i make and exactly why i laugh every day i drive to work in either LS6 powered car. it's an awful thing to not drive an exotic but be as fast as one during the commute to work.
the Ford GT is being classified as such, and i really don't think it is. you guys, once you get beyond your lust for the Ford GT, actually agree with me, but you just don't see it yet.
If I understand your argument, you are saying that so-called "exotic" cars are desirable, in part, because they have an aura of exclusivity about not only the car itself, but all of the mechanical parts of the car. Other, non-exotic cars are desirable because they do the same thing that exotics do, but cost much less and are essentially iconoclastic.
I don't question the merit of either of these positions, but I do question how one person can hold both consistently. I agree that a car should be judged based on what it can do, and not based on what other cars share its piece parts or whether those pieces are made in an industrial suburb in Italy as opposed to an industrial suburb in Michigan. I don't see how there is room, once you adopt this principle, to diss the GT because it shares its engine with a plebian car.
Yes, the GT is more expensive than a Z06. But it is substantially less expensive than even the cheapest Ferrari, and it is profoundly less expensive than the Ferrari that is actually faster than the GT is. How is this not exactly the same as the Z06?
clyde
07-14-2005, 11:10 AM
my viewpoint is that if i opt to pay for an expensive race car, why wouldn't i get the one that has the most development put into it
it's an awful thing to not drive an exotic but be as fast as one during the commute to work.
So, what it sounds like you're saying is that you are a poseur, and hte path of the poseur is the righteous one, correct?
You see, this is the point. You aren't buying a race car, you're buying a street car. The rigors of the racing are not the same as the rigors of the daily grind. Each stresses different components in different ways. If you try to drive your wannabe race car as a daily driver, you're going to have a whole host of issues that can justifiably be placed at the feet of incompetent engineering defined as a lack of development and real world in a rush to production.
Like I said, buy a race car and race it if that's what you want. Buy a regular street car if you want to drive it on the street every day. Buy a fancy car becuase it sets your soul on fire if that's what you want. Just don't try to justify one as being better than another in any way because of what another car does under different circumstances or contains parts that are anywhere from identical to loosely similar as another car.
Let me just say that this thread HAS to take the cake for most writing per post.
:twisted:
Let me just say that this thread HAS to take the cake for most writing per post.
:twisted:
Yes, but yr pst just brought dn the avg.
Jason C
07-14-2005, 11:23 AM
Let me just say that this thread HAS to take the cake for most writing per post.
:twisted:
yes
Sincerely, Doug/ATY
Let me just say that this thread HAS to take the cake for most writing per post.
:twisted:
yes
Sincerely, Doug/ATY
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, we're diluting it big time now. :)
Jason C
07-14-2005, 11:41 AM
BTW as an aside for Stuka, you said no one could be sure if the Z06 is going to be faster than the F430? Well, you like high-speed runs so I thought I'd point this out - the Ford beat the Ferrari to 150 by almost 5 seconds. That's walking away. The Z06 will have a better power to weight ratio than the Ford. I think it won't even be close. But the rags are getting the Z06 right about now (or about to) so we'll have to wait a month or so.
lemming
07-14-2005, 11:45 AM
my viewpoint is that if i opt to pay for an expensive race car, why wouldn't i get the one that has the most development put into it
it's an awful thing to not drive an exotic but be as fast as one during the commute to work.
So, what it sounds like you're saying is that you are a poseur, and hte path of the poseur is the righteous one, correct?
You see, this is the point. You aren't buying a race car, you're buying a street car. The rigors of the racing are not the same as the rigors of the daily grind. Each stresses different components in different ways. If you try to drive your wannabe race car as a daily driver, you're going to have a whole host of issues that can justifiably be placed at the feet of incompetent engineering defined as a lack of development and real world in a rush to production.
Like I said, buy a race car and race it if that's what you want. Buy a regular street car if you want to drive it on the street every day. Buy a fancy car becuase it sets your soul on fire if that's what you want. Just don't try to justify one as being better than another in any way because of what another car does under different circumstances or contains parts that are anywhere from identical to loosely similar as another car.
nice.
nice that you're ignoring the fact, BOTH OF YOU, that this car drives off of the dealer lot for $200,000. okay?
you're both crazy.
if a car that "looks like a race car" with derivative styling that has zero racing heritage does it for you at $200,000 USD, go ahead and buy one.
me?
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot. $200,000 and i'm going to buy a sports car that is a lot closer to the real thing.
THAT is the point and you two can keep blowing smokescreens because you don't like my logic. big deal. get over it. go spend your own money, not mine. trying to call me a poseur because i enjoy driving my superfast american cars that are not exotics is a total red herring cheapshot --in fact, it's laughable because i never make pretense that the cars are anything more than what they are. trying to call me a poseur because i demand that any car that costs $200,000 to drive off a dealer lot must have some racing validation is also completely off-base.
BTW as an aside for Stuka, you said no one could be sure if the Z06 is going to be faster than the F430? Well, you like high-speed runs so I thought I'd point this out - the Ford beat the Ferrari to 150 by almost 5 seconds. That's walking away. The Z06 will have a better power to weight ratio than the Ford. I think it won't even be close. But the rags are getting the Z06 right about now (or about to) so we'll have to wait a month or so.
Just to give you a sense of how big a gap that is, even if the GT hit 150 and just stopped accelerating, it would travel 1100 feet (or nearly 3 football fields, including the end zones) before the Ferrari wheezed to 150 mph.
Of course, in reality the GT would keep accelerating, and the gap would only grow. What's the top speed on the GT? 212? 209? Something like that.
No sunroof in the GT, either.
Jason C
07-14-2005, 11:51 AM
No sunroof in the GT, either.
And none in the Z06. Just poseurific, I say mates! :) :) :)
my viewpoint is that if i opt to pay for an expensive race car, why wouldn't i get the one that has the most development put into it
it's an awful thing to not drive an exotic but be as fast as one during the commute to work.
So, what it sounds like you're saying is that you are a poseur, and hte path of the poseur is the righteous one, correct?
You see, this is the point. You aren't buying a race car, you're buying a street car. The rigors of the racing are not the same as the rigors of the daily grind. Each stresses different components in different ways. If you try to drive your wannabe race car as a daily driver, you're going to have a whole host of issues that can justifiably be placed at the feet of incompetent engineering defined as a lack of development and real world in a rush to production.
Like I said, buy a race car and race it if that's what you want. Buy a regular street car if you want to drive it on the street every day. Buy a fancy car becuase it sets your soul on fire if that's what you want. Just don't try to justify one as being better than another in any way because of what another car does under different circumstances or contains parts that are anywhere from identical to loosely similar as another car.
nice.
nice that you're ignoring the fact, BOTH OF YOU, that this car drives off of the dealer lot for $200,000. okay?
you're both crazy.
if a car that "looks like a race car" with derivative styling that has zero racing heritage does it for you at $200,000 USD, go ahead and buy one.
me?
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot. $200,000 and i'm going to buy a sports car that is a lot closer to the real thing.
THAT is the point and you two can keep blowing smokescreens because you don't like my logic. big deal. get over it. go spend your own money, not mine. trying to call me a poseur because i enjoy driving my superfast american cars that are not exotics is a total red herring cheapshot --in fact, it's laughable because i never make pretense that the cars are anything more than what they are. trying to call me a poseur because i demand that any car that costs $200,000 to drive off a dealer lot must have some racing validation is also completely off-base.
After we both lap a track and my car that looks like a race car but has zero racing heritage crosses the finish line first, who is going to be laughing?
After 10,000 miles, when your much closer to the real thing Italian steed needs a $15,000 brake job and a $20,000 engine teardown (and probably a $15,000 clutch replacement for its flappy paddle gearbox), and my car with zero racing heritage needs an oil change, who is going to be laughing?
BTW--I'm just defending the reasons that one would plunk down $200K for a GT (which, even at that price, is an exceptional value--what do you think Enzos or even F430s are going for in real dollars?). I'm not calling anyone a poseur.
No sunroof in the GT, either.
Where the hell would you put it? Those doors have a good bit of roof built into them.
Jason C
07-14-2005, 12:02 PM
BTW--I'm just defending the reasons that one would plunk down $200K for a GT (which, even at that price, is an exceptional value--what do you think Enzos or even F430s are going for in real dollars?). I'm not calling anyone a poseur.
I know the F430 can easily go for $80,000 over MSRP. The Enzo, I think had a 1.5x to 2x pricing.
And that Z06 reference in the other thread with poseur thrown in was really just a jab. ;) I don't think that skipping over a Z06 for a car that's over 3 times the price and slower overall makes one a poseur by definition. Although doing just that for the implied rationale of running hot laps/DE is a bit poncy imo.
No sunroof in the GT, either.
Where the hell would you put it? Those doors have a good bit of roof built into them.
Such ridiculous gratuitously retro design. Completely impractical. Makes normal parking lots unusable.
I'll still take the Vette. :twisted:
clyde
07-14-2005, 12:57 PM
nice.
nice that you're ignoring the fact, BOTH OF YOU, that this car drives off of the dealer lot for $200,000. okay?
you're both crazy.
if a car that "looks like a race car" with derivative styling that has zero racing heritage does it for you at $200,000 USD, go ahead and buy one.
me?
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot. $200,000 and i'm going to buy a sports car that is a lot closer to the real thing.
THAT is the point and you two can keep blowing smokescreens because you don't like my logic. big deal. get over it. go spend your own money, not mine. trying to call me a poseur because i enjoy driving my superfast american cars that are not exotics is a total red herring cheapshot --in fact, it's laughable because i never make pretense that the cars are anything more than what they are. trying to call me a poseur because i demand that any car that costs $200,000 to drive off a dealer lot must have some racing validation is also completely off-base.
After we both lap a track and my car that looks like a race car but has zero racing heritage crosses the finish line first, who is going to be laughing?
After 10,000 miles, when your much closer to the real thing Italian steed needs a $15,000 brake job and a $20,000 engine teardown (and probably a $15,000 clutch replacement for its flappy paddle gearbox), and my car with zero racing heritage needs an oil change, who is going to be laughing?
BTW--I'm just defending the reasons that one would plunk down $200K for a GT (which, even at that price, is an exceptional value--what do you think Enzos or even F430s are going for in real dollars?). I'm not calling anyone a poseur.
I am calling anyone a poseur that won't own up to their emotional rationalizations to call them what they are...emotional rationalizations. To require the imaginary construct of "racing heritage" for buying a specific car is no different than saying that the styling of a specific car has to make your dick hard to buy the car. But they're both the same thing...emotional responses to the physical object in front of you. The difference is that one side is calling a spade and spade and the other side is calling a spade a chainsaw.
If the shoe fits, wear it. No one is forcing anyone to try it on.
Either way, I wouldn't laugh at anyone that buys a car for however much money because something about it compels them to buy it...no matter what the car or how much they spend...with a single exception. If someone buys something becuase they thinks it's as close to the real thing as they can get when the real thing is available for a fraction of the cost.
Take three guys. Guy #1 buys a $200k car because it sets his heart on fire for the purely emotional reasons of the styling making his dick hard, and the attainable performance makes him gigle every time he puts his right foot down or he turns the wheel. Guy #2 justifies a $200k car purchase on the basis that "it is as close to the real thing as I can get" where "real thing" means "race car" but becuase it is not a race car, doesn't actually race it. Guy #3 spends $20k on a real race car with enough spares that the only money he has to drop into the car to go racing for a full season is what he chews up in tires and brake pads and uses the remaining $180k to replace his regular income when he quits his job to go racing for a couple years.
One of those guys is a poseur. One of them doesn't have the time to argue this nonsense becuase he's got a race car to prepare. The remaining guy is just there because he does what makes himself happy and doesn't try to cloak it in any bullshit.
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
Jason C
07-14-2005, 01:28 PM
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
I agree, except I may never have the time or money for that second car.
But then there's always bikes. :)
lemming
07-14-2005, 03:39 PM
nice.
nice that you're ignoring the fact, BOTH OF YOU, that this car drives off of the dealer lot for $200,000. okay?
you're both crazy.
if a car that "looks like a race car" with derivative styling that has zero racing heritage does it for you at $200,000 USD, go ahead and buy one.
me?
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot. $200,000 and i'm going to buy a sports car that is a lot closer to the real thing.
THAT is the point and you two can keep blowing smokescreens because you don't like my logic. big deal. get over it. go spend your own money, not mine. trying to call me a poseur because i enjoy driving my superfast american cars that are not exotics is a total red herring cheapshot --in fact, it's laughable because i never make pretense that the cars are anything more than what they are. trying to call me a poseur because i demand that any car that costs $200,000 to drive off a dealer lot must have some racing validation is also completely off-base.
After we both lap a track and my car that looks like a race car but has zero racing heritage crosses the finish line first, who is going to be laughing?
After 10,000 miles, when your much closer to the real thing Italian steed needs a $15,000 brake job and a $20,000 engine teardown (and probably a $15,000 clutch replacement for its flappy paddle gearbox), and my car with zero racing heritage needs an oil change, who is going to be laughing?
BTW--I'm just defending the reasons that one would plunk down $200K for a GT (which, even at that price, is an exceptional value--what do you think Enzos or even F430s are going for in real dollars?). I'm not calling anyone a poseur.
I am calling anyone a poseur that won't own up to their emotional rationalizations to call them what they are...emotional rationalizations. To require the imaginary construct of "racing heritage" for buying a specific car is no different than saying that the styling of a specific car has to make your dick hard to buy the car. But they're both the same thing...emotional responses to the physical object in front of you. The difference is that one side is calling a spade and spade and the other side is calling a spade a chainsaw.
If the shoe fits, wear it. No one is forcing anyone to try it on.
Either way, I wouldn't laugh at anyone that buys a car for however much money because something about it compels them to buy it...no matter what the car or how much they spend...with a single exception. If someone buys something becuase they thinks it's as close to the real thing as they can get when the real thing is available for a fraction of the cost.
Take three guys. Guy #1 buys a $200k car because it sets his heart on fire for the purely emotional reasons of the styling making his dick hard, and the attainable performance makes him gigle every time he puts his right foot down or he turns the wheel. Guy #2 justifies a $200k car purchase on the basis that "it is as close to the real thing as I can get" where "real thing" means "race car" but becuase it is not a race car, doesn't actually race it. Guy #3 spends $20k on a real race car with enough spares that the only money he has to drop into the car to go racing for a full season is what he chews up in tires and brake pads and uses the remaining $180k to replace his regular income when he quits his job to go racing for a couple years.
One of those guys is a poseur. One of them doesn't have the time to argue this nonsense becuase he's got a race car to prepare. The remaining guy is just there because he does what makes himself happy and doesn't try to cloak it in any bullshit.
finally, both of you get it.
all it is is my own personal preference for how i'd spend the money, which is why i failed to understand why you would try to put me on the defensive. obviously none of the trappings of exotics cars appeals to me right now. if they did, i'd own one.
i just don't see the point because i "make do" with what i have and i enjoy all of it quite a bit.
it was the theoretical bit of "why would i buy the F430" over the Ford GT> again, with all due respect, it's obvious that none of us are really being drawn into the ferrari demographic. i'm just not seriously interested but i do admit to prefer it by a lot to the Ford GT and neither of you guys are really that serious about a Ford GT. if we were solidly in the demographic, let's be honest. we could have one of each or two of each and the after-racing costs would be irrelevant.
my only point is that i'd still rather have the track proven trickle down that is much more clearly translational from the stradale challenge platform to the street car that is the F430. it was always a rationalization.
we're not even arguing my points anymore. (1) i agree it is a rationalization and (2) you both concede there is more direct racing lineage in the cars that i prefer to the Ford GT. what you are arguing is that your emotional draw to the Ford GT is more powerful than mine. but why does that discount my position? why the personal below the belts and poseur comments?
i don't understand where that stuff is coming from and it's obviously about other issues i've raised in the past that raise your hackles or you have other issues because my stance is clear, it's obviously defensible and i'd never say it was superior to your position, but it's not like you're making a dent in my argument.
the honest truth is we are pondering 200,000 USD cars and i appear to have an added parameter that needs to be fulfilled for consideration that you two consider irrelevant. that's the argument and the tangentials have taken over.
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
I agree, except I may never have the time or money for that second car.
But then there's always bikes. :)
I want a bike.
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
I agree, except I may never have the time or money for that second car.
But then there's always bikes. :)
I want a bike.
Waffler... :rolleyes:
:twisted:
But then there's always bikes. :)
I want a bike.
Waffler... :rolleyes:
:twisted:
The sad/funny thing? I might have the wherewithall to actually buy a bike in about five years. :lol:
John V
07-15-2005, 06:57 AM
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
I agree, except I may never have the time or money for that second car.
But then there's always bikes. :)
I want a bike.
I have a bike.
Jason C
07-15-2005, 07:27 AM
I am calling...bullshit.
Clyde, in a very tangential way has sort of made a point I have been meaning to start a thread about for a while.
Personally, given that I am not filthy rich, nor will I ever be, I rather have a fun, fast car with enough comfort, safety, and practicality to make it a suitable daily driver and have a separate dedicated cheaper car that is 100% track-autox ready, than having a high-dollar, ultimate-performance car that will be grossly underutilized and uncomfortable/impractical as a daily driver, and at the same time will have to worry about and tweak every time I take it to the track.
I agree, except I may never have the time or money for that second car.
But then there's always bikes. :)
I want a bike.
I have a bike.
Damn you. :mad:
clyde
07-15-2005, 09:43 AM
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot.
my only point is that i'd still rather have the track proven trickle down that is much more clearly translational from the stradale challenge platform to the street car that is the F430. it was always a rationalization.
we're not even arguing my points anymore. (1) i agree it is a rationalization and (2) you both concede there is more direct racing lineage in the cars that i prefer to the Ford GT. what you are arguing is that your emotional draw to the Ford GT is more powerful than mine. but why does that discount my position? why the personal below the belts and poseur comments?
The poseur comments are a response to your repeated statement of wanting something as close to the real thing as possible. By definition, that means that what you want is not the real thing. What you want is something that is an imitation or a fake and you want it precisely becuase of its fakeness becuase of the illusion that it is somehow connected to the real thing. What other description is there other than poseur?
But what you're talking about is buying a car because something that you see as similar to it has been part of a racing effort. The car that you would be buying will not have been raced and you will not race it. Meanwhile, cars with a very real and undeniable, undebateable racing connection (because they have been raced and are being sold in ready-to-race condition) are available to you.
This is not the same thing as someone lusting after a Shelby Cobra for its looks, power, sounds and an etheral connection to a different era but that person only having enough money to buy a poorly built FFR Roadster. Nor is it the same as someone that dreams Corvette Gran Sport day and night but the 5 owners of the real ones refuse to sell so he buys a junked midyear and builds his own.
What you describe is wanting a car that has some kind of connection to racing that you can construct in your mind just becuase you see it there. There's nothing about the specific car model that appears to turn you one, to set your soul on fire, etc. Nothing to justify or rationalize the expenditure other than this make believe connection to racing.
Which do you really want? The real thing? Or the fake poseurmobile? :dunno:
Regarding your second numbered point above, I do not acknowledge that there is any more of a real racing lineage to your Ferrari than to my GT. The closest I will come is to say that I undersand that you believe that to be the case. That's not to argue the point, only to point out that if there is a more direct racing lineage, it is completely meaningless.
On your first numbered point, I have no response at this time.
i'd never say it was superior to your position,
let me requote what you said above: "i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot."
Care to explain the distinction?
but it's not like you're making a dent in my argument.
I'm not really sure how you can say that when you won't address the issues begin presented to you.
the honest truth is we are pondering 200,000 USD cars and i appear to have an added parameter that needs to be fulfilled for consideration that you two consider irrelevant.
That is not the case. It is true that we do not view the racing connection in the same light as you do. That we disagree on what connections may or may not exist and what importantance they may have if they do exist does not matter. After you introduced that requirement, I asked why it was a requirement for you out of genuine curiosity. Your response being that you wanted to get as close to the real thing as you could struck me as odd because the real thing is available to you and I (still) do not understand why you would choose the fake over the real thing given your objectives. That is what I have been asking about.
that's the argument and the tangentials have taken over.
lemming
07-15-2005, 05:02 PM
i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot.
my only point is that i'd still rather have the track proven trickle down that is much more clearly translational from the stradale challenge platform to the street car that is the F430. it was always a rationalization.
we're not even arguing my points anymore. (1) i agree it is a rationalization and (2) you both concede there is more direct racing lineage in the cars that i prefer to the Ford GT. what you are arguing is that your emotional draw to the Ford GT is more powerful than mine. but why does that discount my position? why the personal below the belts and poseur comments?
The poseur comments are a response to your repeated statement of wanting something as close to the real thing as possible. By definition, that means that what you want is not the real thing. What you want is something that is an imitation or a fake and you want it precisely becuase of its fakeness becuase of the illusion that it is somehow connected to the real thing. What other description is there other than poseur?
But what you're talking about is buying a car because something that you see as similar to it has been part of a racing effort. The car that you would be buying will not have been raced and you will not race it. Meanwhile, cars with a very real and undeniable, undebateable racing connection (because they have been raced and are being sold in ready-to-race condition) are available to you.
This is not the same thing as someone lusting after a Shelby Cobra for its looks, power, sounds and an etheral connection to a different era but that person only having enough money to buy a poorly built FFR Roadster. Nor is it the same as someone that dreams Corvette Gran Sport day and night but the 5 owners of the real ones refuse to sell so he buys a junked midyear and builds his own.
What you describe is wanting a car that has some kind of connection to racing that you can construct in your mind just becuase you see it there. There's nothing about the specific car model that appears to turn you one, to set your soul on fire, etc. Nothing to justify or rationalize the expenditure other than this make believe connection to racing.
Which do you really want? The real thing? Or the fake poseurmobile? :dunno:
Regarding your second numbered point above, I do not acknowledge that there is any more of a real racing lineage to your Ferrari than to my GT. The closest I will come is to say that I undersand that you believe that to be the case. That's not to argue the point, only to point out that if there is a more direct racing lineage, it is completely meaningless.
On your first numbered point, I have no response at this time.
i'd never say it was superior to your position,
let me requote what you said above: "i laugh. and i'd laugh at you. a lot."
Care to explain the distinction?
but it's not like you're making a dent in my argument.
I'm not really sure how you can say that when you won't address the issues begin presented to you.
the honest truth is we are pondering 200,000 USD cars and i appear to have an added parameter that needs to be fulfilled for consideration that you two consider irrelevant.
That is not the case. It is true that we do not view the racing connection in the same light as you do. That we disagree on what connections may or may not exist and what importantance they may have if they do exist does not matter. After you introduced that requirement, I asked why it was a requirement for you out of genuine curiosity. Your response being that you wanted to get as close to the real thing as you could struck me as odd because the real thing is available to you and I (still) do not understand why you would choose the fake over the real thing given your objectives. That is what I have been asking about.
that's the argument and the tangentials have taken over.
succinctly, for once:
1. it would still amuse me greatly, the thought of someone paying $150,000 for a Ford. is that right to do? probably not. but you know, i get the same response from 98% of the people on this board with regard to an expensive chevy. apply the same thought, just a car that is 5x more cost but with less DIRECT translational racing data built into the DNA of the vehicle (recall they developed the c6z06 in lockstep with the c6r vehicle).
2. i don't have the time in my life (some people work for a living?) to justify having a car that is not licensed with tags completely dedicated to the track. so what i do need is a car that is about as pure as a sports car can be, but still very streetable. there are very few cars that are able to do this. think about it, we've gone through the list before. Radicals don't cut it, the elise is underpowered (to me), the westie is a kit car....the best thing for my needs are a z06, a gt3, an F430.....in other words, not a lot of cars can do it for me.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.