Car Enthusiast Thread

[NeoSneth]

Why not think about a used Acura NSX Targa then?

that is easy. the NSX is outdated as the lotus espirit.....
the styling is so bleh....

it is not often seen, i'll give it that...

 

[K_K]

You acted like you knew a decent amount about the history of the S car lineup when I posted that S600 pic as well as when I was talking about the S2000. I figured that you already knew.

i know about older cars yes. and i know a lot about american cars. but i hardly ever check specs on new japanese cars. and i didn't know that honda called the cars in the S series based on their engine class numbering.

 

[Magnaflux]

I guess the U.S. version of the S cars defeated your formula as well though. It has a 2.2 liter engine and it's still called the S2000.

It should be called the S2200 in the U.S.

Honestly, It's not my formula. I, as a busted college student in Oklahoma have little sway at Honda corporate.


My premise was that, I feel, automakers usually follow some sort of pattern or formula as I've stated when they produce cars, especially alpha numeric names. In addition, when a car is born, there are some qualities of that car, i.e. front engine/type of engine/suspension ect... that are usually attributed to it. Can you think RX-7 without thinking "rotary"?

An example is the Corvette: V8, front/south engine, independant rear axle. These are what come to mind in a 'vette and what people expect. If I were to make a rear-engined 'vette it would clearly violate the formula of what a 'vette is.

In addition, it isn't uncommon for a car that is sold outside the US to be "dumbed-down" for US consumers. It's quite everyday that a US version of a car will be given lower horsepower , usually via 90 degree bends in the exhaust, and generally be de-tuned.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

Snip.

You're so conservative if the 911 had a mid engine, you'd be pissed.

 

[K_K]

You're so conservative if the 911 had a mid engine, you'd be pissed.

and you'd let a mid engined 911 fly?

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

and you'd let a mid engined 911 fly?

Nah, I'd make the Cayman S and the Carrera GT.

Too many Porsche fans were crying that the 928 and 944 weren't true Porsches since they were front engine.

Also I'd rather buy a Cayman S than a 911.

I would make a mid engine Corvette though, or maybe start a brand new mid engine Chevrolet sportscar of a different name. We seriously need those in America.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

An example is the Corvette: V8, front/south engine, independant rear axle. These are what come to mind in a 'vette and what people expect. If I were to make a rear-engined 'vette it would clearly violate the formula of what a 'vette is.

So you're the same bastard who believes that the new Mustangs should have a live rear axle? And doesn't like the 2004 Cobra (I guess current gen right now) because it has an indepedent rear suspension?

 

[K_K]

Nah, I'd make the Cayman S and the Carrera GT.

Too many Porsche fans were crying that the 928 and 944 weren't true Porsches since they were front engine. What about the Boxster then?

Also I'd rather buy a Cayman S than a 911.

I would make a mid engine Corvette though, or maybe start a brand new mid engine Chevrolet sportscar of a different name. We seriously need those in America.

corvette should not be mid engine. but i think what chevy should do is bring back the corvair. that car was a mid mounter, and it was pretty darn badass despite the rollover problems. haha

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

I still think Porsche fans complaining about the 944 and 928 being front engine and not being "true Porsches" is retarded.

Why don't they complain about the Boxster being mid engine rather than rear engine?

It seems like Magna would fall under that whiny crowd who bitches about everything even if the most minute detail of the car is different.

 

[Charles Franklin Fernandez]

Why don't they complain about the Boxster being mid engine rather than rear engine?

Easy, the Boxter was designed to be the spiritual successor of the venerable Porsche Spyder.

And regarding the 924, 944, 928 the thing is that they were co-designed (if not designed) by Audi, which pissed alot of Porsche fanatics at the time. And don't get me started with their terrible quality.

 

[Charles Franklin Fernandez]

I guess the U.S. version of the S cars defeated your formula as well though. It has a 2.2 liter engine and it's still called the S2000.

It should be called the S2200 in the U.S.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there were two versions of the S2000.
The first S2000s that came out had the 2.0 liter engine, then one or two years after its original release came the S2000 with the 2.2 liter engine plus some cosmetic changes.

 

[NeoSneth]

mid engine is rear engine.

it is before the rear axle , so they call it mid.

if you had a tru rear engine, your car would uncontrollably fishtail(oversteer) at 10 mph.

so you do not have true rear engined cars.

 

[DangerousK]

The hell with the 911's. j/k

This is one of the best mid-engined Porsche's ever built.

Ah, the glorious days of racing.

The sound of the 917's flat 12 on the Mulsanne Straight was unlike anything in the world.

 

[Mushiki]

Can you think RX-7 without thinking "rotary"?

Never.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there were two versions of the S2000.
The first S2000s that came out had the 2.0 liter engine, then one or two years after its original release came the S2000 with the 2.2 liter engine plus some cosmetic changes.

Believe me, I know. I drive the 2000 S2000 which has a 2.0 liter engine. It's been a 2.2 liter for a little while now. It should really be called the S2200 now since it does use the 2.2 and doesn't rev as high as the first S2000.

And about Porsche, most of their annoying fans who complain about the slightest change in their cars are probably pissed about the Cayman S because it is actually a better handler than their 911.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

mid engine is rear engine.

it is before the rear axle , so they call it mid.

if you had a tru rear engine, your car would uncontrollably fishtail(oversteer) at 10 mph.

so you do not have true rear engined cars.

911s are rear engine. Beetles (old ones) are rear engine.

In Automobile design, an RR, or Rear-engine, Rear wheel drive, layout places both the engine and drive wheels at the rear of the vehicle. In contrast to the MR layout, however, the center of gravity of the engine is actually past the rear axle.

 

[Tony_N]

if you had a tru rear engine, your car would uncontrollably fishtail(oversteer) at 10 mph.

Thing with 911 is that it's been developed constantly for over 40 years and with modern electronic tracktion and stability aids, the car is very much driveable on the limit.

 

[Magnaflux]

I still think Porsche fans complaining about the 944 and 928 being front engine and not being "true Porsches" is retarded.

Why don't they complain about the Boxster being mid engine rather than rear engine?

It seems like Magna would fall under that whiny crowd who bitches about everything even if the most minute detail of the car is different.

I think you're taking my statements to the extreme. My premise is that say I release a brand new model. The first year, it will have front engine/rear wheel drive. The next year, it will have mid engine/rear wheel drive. The third year, it will have front engine/front wheel drive.

No automaker in their right mind would do such an expensive, silly thing. What I said was that automakers follow formulas to make cars. It's a simple process, not complex to the most minute detail.

If I buy a Grand Marquis, I know what kind of car I'm getting without having to open the hood, or check the undercarrige.

If I buy a Ford Escort, I know exactly what kind of layout it will have and I'll know what to expect.

It's a simple formula so customers know what to expect.


Lets not let this thread deteriorate into some point-picking, anal retentive thread. We have video games for that particular obsession.

 

[NeoSneth]

it's not about traction control and computer assisted turning. If your weight ratio is in the back, neither of those will help.

Tru rear engine sports cars would be silly. Your weight ratio would totally be f'd.

That is the whole point of mid engine. You get near 50/50 with excellent performance.

 

[Tony_N]

it's not about traction control and computer assisted turning. If your weight ratio is in the back, neither of those will help.

Tru rear engine sports cars would be silly. Your weight ratio would totally be f'd.

That is the whole point of mid engine. You get near 50/50 with excellent performance.

911 has a rear mounted engine.
Its engine's mass falls outside the wheelbase, thus making it a rear engine.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

911 has a rear mounted engine.
Its engine's mass falls outside the wheelbase, thus making it a rear engine.

Exactly my point.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

I think you're taking my statements to the extreme. My premise is that say I release a brand new model. The first year, it will have front engine/rear wheel drive. The next year, it will have mid engine/rear wheel drive. The third year, it will have front engine/front wheel drive.

It's a simple formula so customers know what to expect.

Lets not let this thread deteriorate into some point-picking, anal retentive thread. We have video games for that particular obsession.

Yeah, but I hope you agree with me in saying that the Mustang should change to an independent rear suspension rather than sticking with the live rear axle.

The 2004 Cobra rocks because SVT was awesome enough to include independent rear suspension.

 

[NeoSneth]

that is also why 911's are very difficult to feel when you reached their limit.

 

[Charles Franklin Fernandez]

Believe me, I know. I drive the 2000 S2000 which has a 2.0 liter engine. It's been a 2.2 liter for a little while now. It should really be called the S2200 now since it does use the 2.2 and doesn't rev as high as the first S2000.

And about Porsche, most of their annoying fans who complain about the slightest change in their cars are probably pissed about the Cayman S because it is actually a better handler than their 911.

Well, BMW is well know for screwing up its model name/designation. For example, a 3 series with a 2.8 liter engine is called a 325, and so on. So as long as the car is of good quality, and it performs well, I have no problem with its model name/designation.

As for Porsche, the company is so mainstream that it is laughable!
Also these harcore Porschefiles from the 60s-80s are old farts now, and they decided to jump into the mainstream boat by driving their Cayene's and hauling their precious 911 collectables.

About the Cayman S, if you look into, you could say that it follows the original formula of early 911s. A light-weight and agile sports coupe but with a mid-engine instead of the rear one. The 911 grew so much, and it is so overweight that the Cayman is a welcome addition to the family.

But I still believe that Porsche should make an affordable 4-cylinder sports car, like the 914 was sans the rust problems.

 

[Lets Gekiga In]

About the Cayman S, if you look into, you could say that it follows the original formula of early 911s. A light-weight and agile sports coupe but with a mid-engine instead of the rear one. The 911 grew so much, and it is so overweight that the Cayman is a welcome addition to the family.

But I still believe that Porsche should make an affordable 4-cylinder sports car, like the 914 was sans the rust problems.

So you'd also take a Cayman S over a 911? Good call.

And I agree, another affordable Porsche isn't a bad idea.