New cars?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
_xxx_ said:
You forgot the most important aspect.
The Driver.
Most people(talking regular people and not racers etc.) believe that they'll be able to handle a car (whether AWD, FWD and RWD) yet about 75%-80%, when faced with a situation will do things wrong. No matter how good a car is .. if you don't know how to handle it .. you can(not saying you will) fek it up.
Pro's to John and his wife 8) for doing the race course thing. I did a BMW Advanced Driving Course a few years ago and it's amazing what the cars can do(ABS, Tranction Control etc.).
US
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
I LOVE MY Z!!!!
big engine? BAH!
when you americans learn that it's not the power, but combination of weight / power ratio and handling?
1964 (yeah, you guessed right... another MINI story!) Ford of America announced in january that they had built the ultimate Monte Carlo Rally winner car and that their 3 car team would be walking all over the competition in this year race. Cars were racing built 4.7 litre Falcons and no doubt they had way much more power than any of their european rivals. 2 weeks before rally, just in last moment, BMC left their registration for 3 1071 ccm Mini Cooper S'es and the team was pretty much unnoticed, though the team had few smaller rally victories with 997ccm Cooper.
Suprisingly, the fight was really tight and winner was not solved until the final stages. Also the results list was something that basically no one expected. Paddy Hopkirk beat the all Fords with his tiny engined Mini having under 100 bhp and Mäkinen & Aaltonen placing 3rd and 4th made Mini the one and only big small car as it's known up to date. During next 4 years, with development 1275ccm engine and it's various racing tuned variations, Mini was almost unbeatable in road as well as track.
of course, you could also say that everything is relational. ikf you ask from guys building Minis, they call 1275 ccm engine as big block. (not to mention that nowadays you can overbore it all way up to 1420ccm, which tuned correctly makes the poweroutput go beyond 100Kw.)
so, which makes the americans make like bigger engines then? well, there's several explanations given during the years, but I think that keeping majority of stock car racing series run in oval tracks has something to do with it. European ovals (AVUS, Brooklands, Monza...) were dropped as too dangerous after WW II. Another thing is that majority of europe got bad damage from the war and fuel was hard to get, so racing cars and series had to evolute torwards better fuel economy. Also some great endurance races (LeMans 24Hours, Mille Miglia...) required better fuel economy, while open road racing restricted using too wild prototyping features.
Mini's Power Weight Ratio?
on factory default Rally Spec 1966 1289 ccm (overbored to +2) Cooper S gave in dyno run 100Kw (~136bhp), while same car weights 670 kg in racing condition. this makes to power per to to be: 136 / 0.670 t = ~203 bhp per 1000kg. I think you might go pretty fast cars to find same power/weight ratio from same decade U.S. cars. (as guesstimate... Mustang with racing condition might get close, if not pass it. Corvette Stingray, with racing setup might be possible as well.)
when you americans learn that it's not the power, but combination of weight / power ratio and handling?
1964 (yeah, you guessed right... another MINI story!
) Ford of America announced in january that they had built the ultimate Monte Carlo Rally winner car and that their 3 car team would be walking all over the competition in this year race. Cars were racing built 4.7 litre Falcons and no doubt they had way much more power than any of their european rivals. 2 weeks before rally, just in last moment, BMC left their registration for 3 1071 ccm Mini Cooper S'es and the team was pretty much unnoticed, though the team had few smaller rally victories with 997ccm Cooper.Suprisingly, the fight was really tight and winner was not solved until the final stages. Also the results list was something that basically no one expected. Paddy Hopkirk beat the all Fords with his tiny engined Mini having under 100 bhp and Mäkinen & Aaltonen placing 3rd and 4th made Mini the one and only big small car as it's known up to date. During next 4 years, with development 1275ccm engine and it's various racing tuned variations, Mini was almost unbeatable in road as well as track.
of course, you could also say that everything is relational. ikf you ask from guys building Minis, they call 1275 ccm engine as big block. (not to mention that nowadays you can overbore it all way up to 1420ccm, which tuned correctly makes the poweroutput go beyond 100Kw.)
so, which makes the americans make like bigger engines then? well, there's several explanations given during the years, but I think that keeping majority of stock car racing series run in oval tracks has something to do with it. European ovals (AVUS, Brooklands, Monza...) were dropped as too dangerous after WW II. Another thing is that majority of europe got bad damage from the war and fuel was hard to get, so racing cars and series had to evolute torwards better fuel economy. Also some great endurance races (LeMans 24Hours, Mille Miglia...) required better fuel economy, while open road racing restricted using too wild prototyping features.
Mini's Power Weight Ratio?
on factory default Rally Spec 1966 1289 ccm (overbored to +2) Cooper S gave in dyno run 100Kw (~136bhp), while same car weights 670 kg in racing condition. this makes to power per to to be: 136 / 0.670 t = ~203 bhp per 1000kg.
I think you might go pretty fast cars to find same power/weight ratio from same decade U.S. cars. (as guesstimate... Mustang with racing condition might get close, if not pass it. Corvette Stingray, with racing setup might be possible as well.)
Ok, this is getting just waaaaay too off-topic now. :?
Now picture me behind the wheel of that with a maniacal grin on me face.... 8)
Now picture me behind the wheel of that with a maniacal grin on me face.... 8)
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
http://c-racing.web.infoseek.co.jp/20040516/s14_2.wmv
Thought i'd post this.
Hope the link still works.
US
Thought i'd post this.
Hope the link still works.
US
Mmmmmm. Since someone bumped me Z thread I thought I'd mention that the darn car is still just the bee's nuts and I still get that damned ear-to-ear grin every single time I drive it. 8)
I gotta take a pict of how I park my vehicles now, methinks it'd crack some people up.
I gotta take a pict of how I park my vehicles now, methinks it'd crack some people up.
Speaking of new cars, my wife is hot to get one of the new Highlander hybrids.
It gets ~30mpg for city, highway, and occasional driving.
Pretty damn good for a big old SUV.
It gets ~30mpg for city, highway, and occasional driving.
Pretty damn good for a big old SUV.
Who makes the Highlander? I've never heard of it?
Toyota.
Its bigger than a RAV4, smaller than a 4runner (and a Sequoia).
Its bigger than a RAV4, smaller than a 4runner (and a Sequoia).
Unknown Soldier said:http://c-racing.web.infoseek.co.jp/20040516/s14_2.wmv
Thought i'd post this.
Hope the link still works.
US
If that car is outfitted with a normal throttle/clutch then that's pretty damn inpressive. If it's using some sort of automated rpm lock/limiter device then I'm not impressed at all.
Similar threads
