Nathan's and my trip to the Porsche dealer.

Sorry it has been a while since I posted anything. A couple of my friends were giving me grief about not having posted for a while, so here it goes... I figure the middle of my International Law class, the last week of classes, is the perfect time to work on my blog.

My friend, Nathan who I believe I have mentioned on this blog before, came to visit for Thanksgiving. I got up to pick him up from the airport at 6am, and we decided that there was no better time to go see a Fayence Yellow Carrera GT than then...plus it was only an hour drive out of our way. So off we went to Paramount Porsche in Hickory, North Carolina. Pictures from our journey are posted below.

The car was absolutely gorgeous: sleek, low, short, wide, and very sexy. The single hub wheels were very trick (see picture below), and the "negligee" (as Porsche calls it) over the engine compartment was very cool as well. The shifter was on the dash (much like the current-generation Honda Civic Si). It was very cool to see a $480,000 (asking price) car up close and in person.

Another car we found there was a customer car that apparently was there for service or some other reason. It was a 911 Turbo. However, the owner had inexplicably put a badge on the back that says "Turbo GT". Now, you know how I feel about misnomer automobile badges (see earlier Post). I think it is almost unforgivable on a Porsche. In my opinion, a Porsche has two options: (1) the badge that comes on the car from the factory, or (2) the "model designation delete" option from the factory (no badge). The owner had done some interesting things to the car, however: first, he had a GT2 rear wing on it; second, he had a roll bar inside it--interestingly, he had a camera mount on the rollbar, so he can take movies with his camcorder on track days...I'd love to see those; he had some sort of aftermarket front end; he had a Recaro seat (driver's side only); and lastly he had the PCCB (Porsche's carbon-metallic brakes). This was a pretty cool car. I'd be interested to know if he had done anything to the engine. Nathan and I actually had a little trouble figuring out if it was a Turbo or a GT2. We tried to look under the car's front end to see if the front wheels were being driven (thus making it a Turbo), but the car was too low to see. Finally, I noticed that there were "back seats", conclusively showing it was a Turbo and not a GT2. But it was really difficult to know with the GT2 rear spoiler and the PCCB.

Well there you have it. Our trip this last November 21 to Paramount Porsche. Quite an enjoyable experience. Don't forget to look at the pictures below.

Here is a customer car we saw at the dealer. Although it looks like a GT2, it was actually a Turbo. The owner apparently thought it would be cool to put a GT badge on the car. You know how I feel about badges that don't belong on cars... 

It has an aftermarket front end.

Here is the view most cars will ever see of this Porsche. 

As you can see, the car has single lug wheels. I know of only three other cars that did this...the Enzo, the F1, and the 959. 

Here I am with a Fayence Yellow Porsche Carrera GT. The car is absolutely gorgeous in person. 

V12 powered Range?

So, I saw the kid with the Range Rover with a V12 on the back again this morning. I almost asked him about it, but I didn't. My passion about this seemingly trivial matter made me query: What is it about this that bothers me so much? I can't really come up with a clear answer, but it has to do with people trying to mislead others, to do with poseurs, to do with people who want recognition without earning it.

There is a number of things that I have seen along these lines that bother me quite a bit. Some of them are:
- M badges on normal 3-series;
- M badges on normal 5-series;
- DOHC badges on single-cam Hondas;
- Vtec badges on non-Vtec Hondas;
- Type R badges on either (1) non-ITRs, or (2) cars that aren't even Integras [Civics, Accords, etc. (that are not available in Type R trim in the U.S.)]
- Z28 badges on 6-cylinder Camaros
- SS badges on Z28s or 6-cylinder Camaros
- and maybe the one that pisses me off the most--Cobra emblems on (1) Mustang GTs, or even worse (2) 6-cylinder Mustangs
- oh yeah, one that I saw at the gym just the other day--a B6 Audi A4 (not an S4) with the 1.8T engine (!!!) with a RS4 badge on the back; this is wrong on so many levels. To start it was a freaking A4, not an S4. It had a freaking 4-cylinder, not even a 6-cylinder, let alone the 4.2L 8-cylinder that the B6 S4 has. And maybe most importantly THERE IS NO B6 RS4 (even in Europe--there has never been one (even the B5) in the U.S.). This guy might be an even bigger idiot than the V12 Range Rover kid. Close call, though.

Anyway, that is my rant for today. I may get up the sack to ask the kid why he has a V12 badge on his SUV someday, we'll see.

Here is a picture of the Vishnu Evo (see Post below). The car is pretty sick. As you can see, somehow they fit 265s on this car without a widebody kit. I am not sure exactly how they did it, but somehow they did. 

New Favorite Car?

Well, after seeing the HPA Motorsports R32 in the Car and Driver Supercar shootout, I may have changed my mind about it being one of my favorite cars. Somehow the price now is $82,000 (!!!), and the numbers C&D got were 0-60 in 3.6 seconds; 1/4 mile in 11.7 seconds at 119 mph. You'll recall that Motor Trend got 3.2 seconds, and 11.49 seconds at 120 mph. Also in Motor Trend, the quoted price was $59k; then if you look at HPA's website, it was $65k (see Post below); and now the as-tested price in Car and Driver is $82,000 (!!!). Furthermore, on the website, HPA is claiming 452 wheel horsepower and 495 wheel lb-ft of torque; however, in the Car and Driver article, they are only claiming 450 hp and 475 lb-ft BOTH numbers at the FLYWHEEL. Needless to say, this reduces the value/performance ratio a great deal. The actual performance numbers are a little disconcerting, but given track and weather variables, I can see the differences. However, the horsepower and torque numbers require some sort of explanation, of which I have none. The most disturbing thing for me is the price discrepancy. From $60,000 in the Motor Trend article, to $82,000 in the Car and Driver, is inexplicable. That is a 39% (!!!) increase in price. Furthermore, the dollar/horsepower ratio goes from $108/hp (in Motor Trend) to $182/hp in the Car and Driver article. That is a huge increase, and to me, unforgivable.

So, I may have changed over to a (tuned) Evo for my (relatively) reasonable supercar. Here are the numbers from the same C&D article for a (Vishnu) tuned Evo. That is looking closer to the HPA R32 I had in mind when I first heard about it.

$57,000
3217 lbs
475 (claimed) hp
450 (claimed) lb-ft of torque
power to weight ratio of 6.8
0-60: 3.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.6 seconds at 120 mph

However, here are some mods that can be done to an Evo, that it is reported should raise the performance significantly:

2005 Evo MR: $35,600
2005 Evo MR (with options/accessories I would like): $37,000

Mods:
AEM EMS (with UEGO): $2,235
HKS Blow-off Valve: $350
Greddy Cat-back exhaust (Titanium (10 lbs)): $885
B&B downpipe (3"): $330
AEM short ram: $210
Toda stroker engine kit (2.3L): $3100
HKS EVC Ver 2 (boost controller): $575
HKS turbo timer (Type-0): $90

With just the EMS, turbo-back exhaust, and boost controller, Easytrix Racing has seen around 320 whp. This translates to around 390 horsepower at the flywheel. I think with the intake and Toda kit we could easily see around 450 at the flywheel, not to mention a TON more torque because of the extra 326 cc's of displacement (an increase of over 17%). Furthermore, with the boost controller it would hold the boost at 19 psi all the way to redline (right now it drops off to 16 psi at the upper rpm range). I think that one could probably raise the boost controller and EMS to allow as much as 1.5 bars of boost (~22 psi), and furthermore to allow for 92 octane gas (as opposed to the 91 crap that is sold in California), and that would probably raise the horsepower to around 500 at the flywheel. This would also reduce the power to weight ratio to 6.4, which would be pretty impressive. As far as the turbo timer and BOV, those components would be more for safety and longevity than for power. After these mods, obviously the next step would be a larger intercooler and at that point in time, the stock turbo would probably be pretty much maxed out, so we would need to look at upgrading that. Then, the next logical step would be a set of cams. But for around $47,500 (with stock intercooler and stock turbo), you could have a 500 hp, all-wheel drive, 6-speed manual, great handling car that can seat three of your friends pretty comfortably. This would be around $106/hp.

Some other mods that I would probably want to do would be to get 17" SSR Competitions, a rear anti-roll bar (Hotchkis Tuning), a lightweight aluminum flywheel, and Exedy dual plate clutch. Furthermore, the $37,000 price quoted above includes front and rear strut tower braces. With these mods, it would turn a great car into a car that could run with supercars, both in terms of straightline acceleration, as well as handling on a road course. Not to mention, that the 4G63 engine is damn near indestructible, as well as having almost limitless tuning potential (in the last couple months I have seen two articles featuring Evos with 900+ WHEEL horsepower and 700+ WHEEL horsepower (on the bottle). It would be a pretty great little car for not TOO exorbitant a price, that would run with (literally) almost anything on the road. This may have replaced my HPA R32 as a favorite, "attainable" car. I haven't decided for sure, but I am leaning towards the Evo.

Freaking Idiots...

So, I have a little rant to go on here. Sometimes (often) I see some really interesting things at the (private) college I attend. This morning I saw something that proves that money can't buy brains. Some undergraduate kid was driving a brand new Range Rover ($90k), and on the back he had put a "V12" symbol. For those that don't know, the Range comes with a V-8, and no V-12 is optional. So, he took the time, and spent the money, to buy a V-12 badge (at least I think it was from a BMW, not a Benz (the Range has a BMW-sourced V-8)) and have it put on the back of his Range Rover THAT HAS A FREAKING V-8. What a freaking idiot. I almost said something to him at the coffee shop we were at...but I let it go (kind of). I thought I would just vent to you instead.

Shelle's car.

As you will come to know, lightening a car is nearly as important to me as adding power components to the engine. This Post is going to be about potential lightening that can be done to my ex-fiance, Shelle's car. She has a 2000 Honda Civic EX sedan (with a 5-speed (or course)). It is a great little car. However, I do have long-term ideas for it, the main one being an Edelbrock turbo kit (dyno-proven to make 203 horsepower and 157 lb-ft of torque). However, even with that power (a huge increase from the stock 127 hp), her car will "only" have a power to weight ratio of about 12.7 (down from 19.8 stock). I put the quotes around the word only, because at 12.7, that will put her Civic AHEAD (better power to weight) of the SRT-4 (see Post below), the G35 sedan, the last M3 sedan (1998 model year), the ITR, a Mini Cooper S Works (200 hp), the WRX, the R32 and the B5 Audi S4. Not bad for a little SOHC four cylinder. However, with some lightening we can improve that number even more. Here is what I have in mind (all the numbers are really guess-work, but I think they are reasonable estimations):

- Carbon fiber hood and trunk: ~25 lbs (this swap removed 31 pounds from a SRT-4, but Shelle's car does not have the giant, gawdy wing)
- Carbon fiber (front) fenders: ~10 lbs (I figure if 25 lbs for hood and trunk, then 5 lbs per front fender is reasonable)
- dry cell battery: ~15 lbs (the switch to an Optima battery in an RX-7 was good for 16 lbs)
- aluminum flywheel and underdrive pulleys (alternator and power steering): ~10 lbs (an aluminum flywheel alone cuts 14 lbs off a G35)
- seats: ~50 lbs (this is a guess; the seats I am looking at (Sparcos) weigh 16 lbs each, and I figure that probably cuts 25 lbs off the OEM seats per side)
- wheels: ~60 lbs (the wheels themselves (16" SSR Competitions) should cut at least 2 lbs off the OEM steel wheels (14"); in addition the unsprung weight would be the equivalent of taking 56 lbs off the car; I rounded 64 down to 60)
- aluminum radiator (probably a Fluidyne, but possibly a Koyo, C&R, or PWR): ~10 lbs (this is probably the biggest guess of all these; I really don't know what the difference between the factory steel radiator is and an aluminum radiator)
- plastic fan (FAL): ~5 lbs (this is another guess, but I think that replacing both the stock metal (steel) shroud and fan, and replacing them with a plastic shroud and fan would easily drop 5 lbs; plus another cool thing is that the depth on this fan is only 1/2 that of the OEM fan, leaving more room in the engine bay for whatever you might need to put in there)

The grand total reduction would be in the neighborhood of 185 lbs. That is a really big chunk of weight and would reduce the Civics weight to below 2400 lbs. This loss alone would drop the power to weight ratio to 11.8. If you add to the turbo kit a camshaft and cat-back exhaust, it should be good for close to 220 hp, which would decrease the power to weight ratio to 10.9. For reference sake, that would tie or better the ratios for the NSX, the STi, the Dodge Ram SRT-10 Quad Cab (with the Viper engine), the 1995 RX-7; 350Z, 2004 (B6) S4, Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Mitsubishi Evolution RS, etc. Pretty impressive company for a four-door economy car.

A really great side effect of taking most of that weight off is that it should improve the weight distribution dramatically. Particularly, the flywheel, radiator, battery, carbon fiber hood, carbon fiber front fenders, and fan would all reduce the weight solely on the front axle, which would get the distribution closer to the 50/50 ideal, which in turn would improve handling.

Obviously this is all pie in the sky right now, but it is something that I am very interested in doing in the future.

Sportec SP700.

Sportec is a well-reputed Porsche tuner based in Germany. It also tunes Audis, with a notable example being the Sportec RS600--a 600hp version of the RS6. This Post, however, is about one of its craziest creations, the SP700. This is a modified Porsche 911 GT2 (remember my Display Name and the Post below?). As you probably guessed, the car makes 700hp (at 7100 rpms) and also 568 lb-ft of torque (at 4250 rpms). Factor in the stock GT2's curb weight of 3131, and you come up with a power to weight ratio of 4.5. That number, by the by, puts the SP700 6th place on my power to weight ratio list [behind the F50 GT (2.7), ME Four-Twelve (3.4), Autothority Stage IV Porsche 911 GT2 (4.2), Koenigsegg CCR (4.4), and tied with the almighty McClaren F1 (also 4.5)]. Now just think of ANY other road car you can imagine that I didn't just name, and the SP700 has a better power to weight ratio. ANY car. In case you were wondering what you do to a car that has 477 hp stock (2004 model) to increase that number by nearly 50%, you install a new ECU, new intercoolers, new turbos, titanium connecting rods (those little components might be the coolest mod in my opinion), new camshafts and more. The car has monster 19s (315/25 in the rear). Somehow the SP700 is able to defy the laws of physics and only slightly spins the tires when you rev it to 5k and drop the clutch. I still have a hard time believing that. Here are some performance numbers: 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds; 0-100 in less than 7 seconds [you'll recall this puts it AHEAD of all three of the "supercars" from my earlier Post]; and Sportec claims a top speed of 217, which sounds completely realistic to me. Sam Mitani (R&T) wrote about this car, "Around town, the SP was a delight. At less extreme speeds, it was as comfortable and easy to drive as a stock 911." This is why I love Porsches. This is why Porsches are my favorite cars. Would you want to "live" with a 700hp Viper SRT-10? Would you want to "live" with a 700+ hp Ferrari? I don't think I would. And yet, this SP700 is completely civil and livable even though it puts up numbers that literally only a handful of cars in the world can match. Porsche knows how to make great cars. Oh yeah, the price for this Teutonic torpedo? $275,000.

I posted two pictures of Sportec Porsches below.

The link to the article where most of this information was gleaned from is below (also has some additional pics):
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=856&page_number=1

Here is the SP700. That is a sick car. Plain and simple. See above ("Sportec SP700") for more details. 

Here are both the Sportec Turbo and the Sportec SP700 (GT2). Essentially identical, except for slightly different aero packages, and the Turbo is all wheel drive and heavier, and the GT2 is rear-wheel drive and lighter. See above ("Sportec SP700") for more details. 

Here she is in all her beauty and majesty. The new 2005 M5. Whether you like the new styling or not, it's performance predilections are obvious. 

Where "all the magic happens". Unfortunately the beauty is hidden by the engine cover. But you can see by the strut-tower brace, how serious this four-door is. 

The M5.

Well, for those that know me well, you knew it was just a matter of time before I dedicated a Post to the incredible M5. It has long been either near or sometimes at the top of my dreamcar list--my cars that I would most like to own. The E39 M5 (2000-2003) was quite a performer. BMW squeezed 394 hp (6,600 rpms) and 368 lb-ft of torque (3,800 rpms) out of the 5.0 V-8 engine. With a curb weight of 4,024 lbs, the M5 had a power to weight ratio of 10.2, not bad for a big four-door sedan that you could comfortably road trip with three other adults in. Furthermore, if your pockets were deep enough, you could take your M5 to Steve Dinan and he could coax 471 horsepower out of it (for a power to weight ratio of 8.5). An aside here: the E39's M5 engine is rumored to be going into the next-generation M3, which should strike fear in the hearts of all S4 and C55 owners (not to mention all the Porsche drivers in the ALMS's GT class).

All things, however, must come to an end, and the E39 M5 did so at the end of the 2003 model year. With the new E60 5-series, BMW (and particularly head designer, Chris Bangle) have made a lot of BMW-faithful very angry with the new cars polarizing styling. I happen not to mind it that much. It definitely is not an evolution of the E39, but a completely new styling direction. Only time will tell what the long-term results of the styling changes are. But today (or very soon at least) we get to enjoy one of the most-potent four-doors on the road. In fact, this is the first 10 cylinder engine BMW has made for a street car, and it is the most powerful engine, BMW has every put into a street car. And what an engine it is. BMW likes to draw attention to the connection between the M5's engine and that of the Williams F1 BMW. Obviously the similarities end pretty much beyond the number of cylinders, but nonetheless it will give well-heeled owners something more to impress their friends with. The new engine is only 3 cubic inches larger than the E39's in displacement, remaining at 5.0 liters. With lightened internals, and an extra two cylinders, however, the V-10 makes 500 hp (7,750 rpms) and 384 lb-ft of torque (6,100 rpms). This engine is able to hit the mythical 100hp/liter ratio, a rarified place indeed. The redline, by the way, is at an astronomical 8,250 rpms. In fact, the engine will tolerate short runs all the way to 8,500 rpms during full-throttle upshifts. Yes, one could call this motor high-strung. If you remember from the "Three Supercars" Post below, that redline is higher than the Ferrari Enzo's and only 150 shy of the Porsche's. Pretty impressive company.

How about some numbers:

2005 BMW M5
5.0 liter V-10
compression ratio: 12.0:1
redline: 8,250 rpms
front-engine, rear-wheel drive
7-speed SMG transmission
curb weight: 4035 lbs
500 hp
384 lb-ft of torque
power to weight: 8.1
0-60 mph (BMW's claims): 4.6 seconds
0-125 mph (BMW's claims): 14.4 seconds
top speed: 155 mph (governed), but I hear it is good for close to 190

I can't wait until the press is able to do full performance tests on this car to see what kind of verified numbers it can put up. E55s and RS6s beware. The M5 is back.

Here is a side view of the ME412 (see Post below entitled "The Beast"). The thing looks pretty sick.

Here is a picture of the ME412 at Laguna Seca (see Post below entitled "The Beast"). Yes, it does actually run.

The Beast.

Well, ever since its introduction at the North American [Detroit] Auto Show this past January, the Chrysler ME412, has created quite a buzz among the automotive community. Could (would (should)) Chrysler build a car that would handily beat a $1 million Ferrari Enzo? Well, the answer to that question is still up in the air, but we are one step closer to the ME412 as a reality. This is evidenced by Chrysler building a running prototype/test mule and bringing it to Laguna Seca in order to allow a handful of car magazine writers an opportunity to drive this supercar around the track. Here are some of the numbers Chrysler is claiming:

6.0 liter quad(!!!)-turbo V12 (built by AMG)
Curb weight: 3100 lbs (but with a target/goal of around 2880 lbs)
Horsepower: 850
Torque: 850 lb.-ft
Power to weight ratio: 3.6 right now (but 3.4 if target weight is met)
7-speed dual (wet) clutch w/ paddle shifting
15 inch (!!!) Brembo carbon ceramic brakes
0-60: 2.92 seconds
0-100: 6.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 10.6 @ 136 mph
braking: in excess of negative 2.0 g's

Dan Knott, head of SRT performance operations for the Chrysler Group, claims that those numbers are conservative. That sounds a little difficult to believe, but let's remember the conservative numbers of the (Dodge) SRT-4. Just as a reminder, the Enzo, which had the best straightline performance numbers of the three below, got to 60 in 3.4, 100 in 7.0, and the 1/4 mile in 11.0 @ 133.9. Wow. I don't know that I have a lot more to say than "Wow". This Chrysler truly is The Beast. Also, Chrysler claims 925 pounds of downforce at 186 mph. This is just as much a racecar as the Enzo. And it's a freaking Chrysler! Unreal. Chrysler has not committed to putting the ME412 into production yet. It depends on the demand for the car.
Chrylser Group CEO Dieter Zetsche says that he will not build it if he can't make a profit on it (won' t build it just for brand recognition's sake). He says he wouldn't make more than 1000. And at that production value, the price would probably be around $250,000. However, if the demand was significantly less than that (say, less than 500) the price could be as high as $750,000 to make it profitable. Obviously the bottom line question is, whether someone that can afford a car in this price range, would be willing to shell out 3/4 of $1 million for a car that does NOT have a prancing horse, Porsche emblem, or the like on the front. That is a very difficult question. My friend, Nathan, and I have talked about it a number of times, and neither of us would have any problem with a Chrysler emblem on the front of our car while we were driving circles around the Enzos and the Carrera GTs (and anything else for that matter) on track days. Will Chrysler build The Beast? We can certainly hope so.

I've seen a lot of things in my time...

...but I have never seen what I saw this morning on my way to school. I saw a Jaguar XKR convertible ($87k, 390 hp coupe) pulling a flatbed trailer down the road. Things that make you go, "hmmmm..."

P.S. Bryan Herta's comments on the Carrera GT's engine.

"Absolutely the wildest stock engine I've ever driven."

Three supercars.

In the October issue of Motor Trend, the magazine tested three supercars at Ford's Arizona Proving Grounds track: the 2003 Ferrari Enzo, the 2005 Ford GT, and the 2004 Porsche Carrera GT, all of which have been mentioned in passing in earlier posts. I thought I would post what I think are some important numbers that the folks at MT came up with for these incredible machines.

Enzo:
Price: $652,830 (BUT, see previous Post below)
6.0 liter V-12
6-speed "F1" gearbox
Engine redline: 8200 rpms
Compression ratio: 11.2:1
Curb weight: 3254
Horsepower: 651 (7800 rpms)
Torque: 485 lb-ft (5500 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.0
Tires (f/r): 245/35 19 and 345/35 19
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.0 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.0 @ 133.9
top speed: 211.0
100-0 mph: 289 feet
60-0 mph: 106 feet
slalom: 71.0 mph
skidpad: 0.96 g
MT's figure eight: 24.5 seconds at 0.82 g

Ford GT:
Price: $157,095
5.4 liter supercharged V-8
6-speed manual
Redline: 6500
Compression ratio: 8.4:1
Curb weight: 3468
Horsepower: 550 (6500 rpms)
Torque: 500 (3750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 6.3
Tires (f/r): 235/45 18 and 315/40 19
0-60 mph: 3.7 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.4 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.2 @ 131.2
top speed: 200 mph
100-0 mph: 301 feet
60-0 mph: 110 feet
slalom: 71.8 mph
skidpad: 0.91 g
MT's figure eight: 25.2 seconds at 0.77 g

Carrera GT:
Price: $448,300
5.7 liter V-10
6-speed manual
Redline: 8400 rpms
Compression ratio: 12.0:1
Curb weight: 3258 lbs
Horsepower: 605 (8000 rpms)
Torque: 435 (5750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.4
Tires (f/r): 265/35 19 and 335/30 20
0-60 mph: 3.6 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.3 seconds
0-100-0: 11.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.1 @ 133.4
top speed: 201 mph
100-0 mph: 277 feet
60-0 mph: 101 feet
slalom: 73.2 mph
skidpad: 0.99 g
MT's figure eight: 23.8 seconds @ 0.86 mph

A couple notes: First, Motor Trend got Bryan Herta (IRL) to do the driving for them, so there can be no questions as to lack of driver skill and/or error; Second, Herta reported that he left a little top end out on the track for the Ford and quite a bit for the Porsche, but just ran out of room. The first thought that springs to mind looking at these numbers is the incredible (relative) bargain the Ford is. Yes, it gets beat by the other two, but it runs with them in all performance aspects...at 1/4 and 1/3 the price. Pretty impressive. An aside: I saw THREE Ford GTs driving westbound on I-94 in Michigan this past July (around milemarker 165, if memory serves), together in a convoy. That is one of the things that I loved about living in Michigan; I would often see cars that no one else in the world (or at least very few) had ever seen, being so close to Detroit. Those three Fords might be the most impressive automotive sight that I have seen (or ever will see) in real life. That leaves the Porsche and the Ferrari. What I am about to write reflects an ongoing argument/disagreement that my good friend, Nathan, and I have. He is a Ferrari guy, and I am a Porsche guy. Yes, the Enzo beats the Carrera GT to 60 mph, 100 mph, and the quarter mile by 0.2 seconds, 0.3 seconds, and 0.1 seconds respectively. The Ferrari's trap speed is 0.1 mph higher than the Porsche's. Oh yeah, and it has a 10 mph top speed advantage (possibly lessened or negated with a longer straight). To me, these numbers are a wash. In my opinion, what is really telling are the handling and braking numbers. The Porsche ran through the 600 ft. slalom 2.2 mph faster than the Enzo. Further, Herta reported that the Enzo was much more difficult to run through the course because the rear end was so twitchy and difficult to catch (this is coming from a professional, open-wheel race car driver). The Carrera GT pulls an extra 0.03 g on the skidpad. Perhaps even more importantly are the braking numbers: the Porsche bettering the Ferrari by 5 feet from 60 mph and 12 feet from 100 mph. The bottom line of these numbers is reflected in MT's figure eight performance numbers. The Porsche completed it 0.7 seconds quicker, translating to a 0.04 g advantage. Granted, you could argue that these numbers are a wash as well, but I really believe that if you took both cars to a track (road course) and ran them around that the Carrera GT would consistently put up better lap times than the Enzo due to its superior braking, better handling, and increased predictability at 10/10ths. I just hope that we're able to see those numbers again sometime. An aside here, I think that my hypothesis just stated is backed up by news from Germany that two weeks ago the Carrera GT posted the fastest time ever recorded around the 174 turn (!!!), 14.0 mile North Loop circuit at Nurburgring, generally believed to be the most difficult race track in the world. The car AVERAGED over 101 mph over the entire race track, setting the record of 7 minutes, 32.44 seconds. I don't know whether the Enzo has been tested there or not (Ferrari usually tests at Monza or Fiorano). But it would certainly be nice to see how these cars match up on the race track.

What exactly IS the Enzo's price?

In a previous Post (see "My 'Display Name' explanation"), I made a claim as to the price of the new Ferrari Enzo. I have an update and correction to make for that. My memory was close to accurate, as I remembered $600,000. The actual MSRP (including destination and handling) is $652,830. However, and this is a a really big HOWEVER, in this week's Autoweek magazine, there is an Enzo for sale in the classifieds. Asking price: $1.1 million. Obviously people are charging (and apparently paying) for the exclusivity of the car and not the performance.

Jeremy's wedding (look Mother and Shelle, a non-car Post!! :) )

I went to Portland, Oregon, two weeks ago to attend one of my best friend, Jeremy's wedding. It was really a great time. I was able to stay with my very good friend Ryan and his wife Julie in their house in Vancouver. It was really great to see them, and be able to spend time with them. Unfortunately I am unable to do so as much as I would like due to being in North Carolina. Speaking of the Northwest, when I flew into Seattle, there was about a half-moon out, on a clear night, and you could see the silhouette of Mt. Rainier in the sky. It was truly incredible. I really miss the Northwest. The wedding was great. It was in a great little church in downtown Portland. Elisa looked radiant. Jeremy was as handsome as ever. Seeing and talking with friends and family was really nice and a refreshing break from school. Finally, and most importantly, I got to see my dear fiancee', Shelle. Time with her has seemed awfully rare as of late (understandedly, I suppose), and therefore all the more precious. I really enjoyed spending the weekend with her and am glad that I could share such a special occasion with her and my friends and family.

Here is my beautiful fiancee' Shelle. This is at Jeremy's wedding reception. 

Here are my great friends from high school. Ryan (the guy from the TSX post below), myself, Kevin, and Jeremy. 

Here is myself, my very good friend Jeremy, and his new wife Elisa. 

Performance deal of all time?

My friend Nathan and I have talked about this a number of times and we cannot think of a better performance bargain than the Dodge SRT-4. Here are the numbers:

2.4 liter turbocharged in-line four cylinder
front engine, front wheel drive
5-speed manual
Quaife limited slip differential
curb weight: 2970 pounds
230 horsepower
250 lb-ft of torque
power to weight ratio of 12.9
0-60 mph: 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.9 at 103 mph
top speed: 148 mph (electronically limited)--although Car and Driver has clocked it at 153
0.86g on the skidpad

Yes, you read correctly. That is a front driver clocking a 5.3 second 0-60 time. Yes, you read correctly. That is a front driver that is a 13 second car. Pretty crazy. The obvious question is, "how does Dodge get this kind of performance out of 'only' 230 hp?" Well the answer lies in a little dishonesty on Dodge's part--the good kind of dishonesty. Dodge, god bless 'em, significantly underrated the power output on the SRT-4. One dyno slip I have seen of a 2004 SRT-4 put down 238 horsepower and 249 lb-ft of torque TO THE WHEELS. Factoring in a conservative 12% drivetrain loss, we're talking about 266 horsepower and 286 lb-ft of torque at the flywheel. Wow. That number would drop the power to weight ratio down from 12.9 to 11.2, which would make the performance figures a littler easier to understand.

One of the really cool options available on the SRT-4 is the dealer installed, Mopar performance upgrades, Stages I-III.

Stage I:
240 horsepower
260 lb-ft torque

Stage II:
260 horsepower
280 lb-ft torque

Stage II with Turbo Toys and High Octane Mode:
280 horsepower
300 lb-ft torque

Stage III:
300 horsepower
300 lb-ft of torque

Your guess is as good as mine as far as what "real" numbers these different cars are putting down. It is certainly reasonable to assume significantly more than claimed.

One last thing about the SRT-4. In the November 2004 issue of Sport Compact Car, they tested what Dodge is calling the SRT-4 Extreme Lightweight. It is a completely stripped, race-ready SRT-4, with Stage III tuning. The removal of material resulted in a reduction of 400 lbs of mass. Wow. The curb weight SCC got was 2495. Also, they strapped the car on the dyno and nourished it with some 100 octane race fuel. Then they took it to the dragstrip and racetrack. The results:
369 (wheel) horsepower
383 (wheel) lb-ft of torque
0-60: 4.7 seconds
0-100: 9.6 seconds
1/4 mile: 12.5 at 119.2
slalom: 1.01 g
skidpad: 74.9 mph
60-0 mph: 109 feet
Again if we factor in a 12% driveline loss, the numbers are approximately 413 horsepower and 428 lb-ft of torque. Now our power to weight ratio is 6.0. Just for reference, that number puts it ahead of cars such as the Viper SRT-10 (6.8), Ford GT (6.8), 911 GT2 (6.6), the new Ferrari F430 (6.5), and the Mercedes SLR (6.1). The types of car that have better power to weight ratios are ones such as a Z06 with a Vortech Supercharger (5.9), the Dodge Viper Competition Coupe (5.8), Maserati MC12 (5.1), Enzo (5.0), Carrera GT (5.0) and the S7 (5.0). Needless to say this is pretty rare company.
One of the most interesting things about the SRT-4 Extreme Lightweight is that the only engine mods were the Mopar Stage III kit (which any person can get from their local Dodge dealer), a side-exit exhaust (which any good neighborhood muffler/exhaust shop ought to be able to do (not Midas)), and 100 octane fuel (expensive, but certainly available). In short, anyone can make those power numbers on a SRT-4. Obviously it would be difficult (and probably impractical) to reproduce the weight loss, but with over 400 horsepower at the flywheel, the stock weight wouldn't feel all that heavy. An aside here: the Dodge boys installed SSR Competitions (remember I said those are my favorite rims in the world) on this SRT-4 in addition to R-compound Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires. I told you I like those rims. The 17X8s they used weigh a measly 13.7 pounds. That unsprung weight reduction just magnified the 400 pound diet the SRT-4 went on.

Oh, by the way, a 2005 Dodge SRT-4 with a 70,000 mile warranty: $21,228 including destination and handling. That, my friends, is a measly $92 per horsepower (using Dodge's claimed horsepower numbers). Which begs the question: Is this the best performance deal of the decade? the century? all time?

Response to Comments on Passat and TSX.

I received an anonymous comment about my Post entitled "Acura TSX". This Post is in response to the comment. First regarding the pricing. The car I priced out included the Leather Package (which in turn includes the Cold Weather Package). The price is $1915. I also added ESP for $280 and Onstar for $700 bringing the total of the Passat to $28,600. Granted, none of the options are "necessary", and admittedly the Passat comes with a laundry list of very prime stock features. However, I enjoy leather, and it will help with resale as well. Further, heated seats are appreciated by anyone living in a cold climate. At any rate, whether you want leather and heated seats or not, I truly believe that ESP is a worthwhile investment, especially for $280. I completely agree that the Passat is a solid car. However, every review I have read (about most VWs in general, with perhaps the one exception being the new R32) about the Passat is that it is soft. Granted, the body structure is solid as stone, but the chassis set up is directed more towards comfort rather than sporty handling. So, to put it on the same handling level as the Mazda 6, you would need to add in at least springs and anti-roll bars (and ideally, struts, strut-tower braces, and a wheel and tire package). Even assuming the base price of $25,700, adding these suspension components on to the price tag would increase the bottom line significantly. Let me make myself clear. I am not at all saying that I think the Passat is a bad choice or even a "lesser" car than the 6. I am merely saying that in terms of "off the lot" performance, the Mazda 6 is a hands-down winner, both in terms of straightline performance (has 50 more horsepower than the Passat) and in terms of handling--a univerally stellar Mazda trait. That being said, you would definitely have to take into account the long-term power potential of the 1.8T, already discussed ad naseum. Put that adds a whole other level to the price range. If you're willing to put money into the Passat, I think that it has the potential to be an all around better car than the 6, but out of the box, I think you have to give the nod to the 6.

As far as the TSX goes, I agree that it is a great car. I am not sure I can justify the price, given what other cars are in its price range, but it is certainly a viable option. As far as the aftermarket goes for the TSX, I turned to Comptech USA, a noted Honda/Acura tuner. Here is what they offer in terms of engine performance:

Comptech TSX numbers:
Includes: intake, cat-back exhaust, and headers
Cost: $1633 (plus S&H)
horsepower: 214
torque: 170
(new) power to weight ratio: 15.1 (16.1 for stock, 15.6 for AEM Short Ram)

To me, this is a collosal waste of money. If you recall the earlier post, the AEM Short Ram by itself made 207 horsepower and the same amount of torque as the three Comptech components (170). I really can't see spending the extra $1400 for only 7 additional horsepower. I would probably go with the AEM, and then wait for either (1) a supercharger (which, by the way, I hear is in the works), or (2) some high compression pistons and additional internal engine modifications (which means a lot of $$$).

As far as the components for the new (American platform) Accord and how they would relate to the TSX (European Accord) platform, in short, they don't at all. The two cars are on completely different platforms, so the 'swapability' of components is nonexistent. That being said, the K24 (the engine designation for the TSX) is a honey of a motor, and it is just a matter of time before a large number of aftermarket companies come out with some really cool components for it. Just for general information purposes, the K24 is closely related to the K20A2 (the engine in the Acura RSX Type S). In fact essentially the K24 is just a "stroked" K20A2. The two engines have the identical 3.4" bore, but at 3.9", the K24's stroke is 0.5" longer than the RSX's. Point of all that being, that there is right now a plethora of aftermarket goodies for the RSX, and so really with the TSX what you're getting is a RSX with (1) more torque (because of the additional 400 ccs of displacement) and (2) more power potential (also because of the 400 ccs of displacement) because you won't have to put as much stress on the 2.4 liter as you would on the 2.0 liter to get the same amount of power out of it. Sure, the parts for the TSX are not yet available, but given the demand for Honda/Acura aftermarket parts, you can be sure that many companies are doing a ton of R&D to get some TSX parts out on the street. I don't know if that answered the question regarding the relationship between the Accord and the TSX or not, but I hope so.

On a (sort of) related topic: as far as the potential for the TSX goes, currently in the Speed World Challenge Series (Touring Car Series) there are two TSXs that are 3rd and 7th in the point standings (behind a bunch of BMWs and a Sentra SE-R). That tells you what a great platform it is to build on.

Here is the 2004 GT2. Notable differences from 2003 include the carbon fiber rear spoiler (6.2 lbs. lighter, not to mention looks really cool) and the new 10 spoke lightweight wheels.

Here is the F50GT. How sick is this? Reportedly, a F50GT (one of only three ever made) sold at auction for $1.4 million a few years ago. 

Here is the Mazdaspeed 6. Pretty unimposing (which I like). Obviously the 18 inch wheels, and new front bumper and air dam are differences. Large holes in front bumper important for intercooler breathing. 

Here is the HPA R32. Take off the decals on the side, and this would be quite a little sleeper. 

Acura TSX.

My friend Ryan wrote me a note that he was able to drive a TSX around all this past weekend. I am jealous. When my brother was car shopping, he originally was looking in a higher price range and cross-shopped a TSX, the Mazda 6(s), and the VW Passat. Here are my thoughts/notes on these three fine automobiles: (here, just for current and future reference, I will always give weights of manual transmission automobiles (if available), and the price will be that of a car equipped the way I would prefer if I were buying it)

Acura TSX:
2.4 liter in-line four cylinder
front engine, front wheel drive
7100 rpm redline
200 horsepower (6800 rpms)
166 lbs-ft of torque (4500 rpms)
6-speed manual transmission
3230 lbs
power to weight ratio of 16.2
34.2 inches of rear leg room
passenger volume: 91.0 cubic feet
cargo space: 13.0 cubic feet
$31,000 (loaded the way I would like)

Mazda 6:
3.0 liter V6
front engine, front wheel drive
220 horsepower (6300 rpms)
192 lbs-ft of torque (5000 rpms)
5-speed manual
3241 lbs
power to weight ratio of 14.7
36.5 inches of rear leg room
passenger volume: 111.3 cubic feet
cargo space: 15.2 cubic feet
$26,900 (loaded the way I would like)

Volkswagen Passat:
1.8 liter turbo in-line four
front engine, all wheel drive
170 horsepower (5900 rpms)
166 lbs-ft or torque (1950 rpms)
5-speed manual
3491 lbs
power to weight ratio of 20.5
35.3 inches of rear leg room
passenger volume: 92.3 cubic feet
cargo space: 15.0 cubic feet
$28,600 (loaded the way I would like)

Other interesting (aftermarket) options:
APR Stage I chip for Passat:
208 horsepower
245 (!!!) lbs-ft of torque
(new) power to weight ratio of 16.8
price: $780 (with options I want)
total (modified) Passat price: ~$29,400

AEM Short Ram for TSX:
207 horsepower
170 lbs-ft of torque
(new) power to weight ratio of 15.6
price: $245
total (modified) TSX price: ~$31,300

AEM CAI for Mazda 6:
228 horsepower
201 lbs-ft of torque
(new) power to weight ratio of 14.2
price: $193
total (modified) 6 price: ~$27,100

Conclusion: I think in terms of right off the lot I would have a very hard time choosing between a Passat and a 6. The 6, it is clear, is the value leader of the bunch. With the CAI, it has a power to weight ratio of 14.2, and it costs only $27,100. Add a lightweight flywheel, cat-back exahust, possibly headers, and I think close to 250 (flywheel) horsepower for probably less than $30,000 (including installation costs) is doable. However, again as you will come to learn, the 1.8T from VW/Audi group is one of my favorite engines, mainly because of its tuning potential. APR has a Stage III kit for $4500 (plus installation) that puts out 280 horsepower. Add to that fact, the (new) availability of 4Motion (all wheel drive) with the four cylinder, and in terms of long term performance, the VW is pretty appealing. But again, we're talking nearly $30,000 ($35,000 with the APR kit), for less power, even if it has what most car magazines consider to be one of (if not THE) best interiors on the market. Unfortunately not a solid answer here. If I had $35k to budget for a car and I had to choose one of these three cars, it would probably be the 4Motion Passat with the APR kit and possibly a FMIC. The all wheel drive really appeals to me, and the interior in Volkswagens is second to none. However at $35k, that brings a LOT of cars into the picture (see G35, STi, Evo MR, R32, not to mention my SC300/2JZ-GTE project). Difficult choices all. Obviously I think it is what you are looking for in a car and what you are willing (or unwilling) to live with (harsh ride, lack of interior space--particularly rear leg room, etc., etc.). Speaking of the G35, one of my good friends has a 2003 G35 sedan, 6-speed with a few sick mods. I'll tell you more about that later.

My (fairly) realistic dream car.

I will be talking alot about this in the future, but I thought I would give a quick introduction. I believe the next car I will buy will be a 1992-1997 Lexus SC300 with a 5-speed manual transmission. Stock, it is a great, classic-looking, dependable, mildly sporty, luxury coupe. I can (and will) drive it happily for some time completely stock. However, the plans for it consist mainly of an engine swap. The Toyota 2JZ-GTE is the engine from the 1993-1997 Toyota Supra Turbo. It, along with the 6-speed manual transmission will fit right into the SC300 with no engine mount modifications, as the stock SC300 engine is the 2JZ-GE (identical to the Supra Turbo's except without the twin turbos). I know of a company (in Florida, if memory serves), that will install a new Supra engine in your SC300 for $11,000. So, for less than $30,000 I could have a 320hp Lexus with a 6-speed manual. One of the best things about the 2JZ-GTE is the potential that it has. I just read an article last week about a 1076 WHEEL horsepower Supra (with the same engine). Needless to say, the engine is incredibly tuneable, and even better, incredibly dependable. With a handful of modifications, I believe I can see easily 450-500 (flywheel) horsepower with that engine and I believe keep it streetable and reliable. Don't worry, there are plenty more Posts to come about this idea/project.

Speaking of Mazdas...

So I was thinking about the amalgamation of two of the posts I made earlier. Specifically that of the Mazdaspeed 6, and my brother's Mazda 3s. Here is what I am thinking: Assuming clearance and fit would not be an issue, the Mazda 3 with the 2.3 liter turbo from the Mazdaspeed 6 would be a CRAZY little car. Admittedly, without the all wheel drive, it would be a pain in the rear end to drive (275 horsepower to the front wheels would do that), but it would undoubtedly be fast. Just something to think about.

My brother's car.

My brother purchased a 2004 Mazda 3s earlier this year. He loves it. I have driven it, and it is quite a nice little car, particularly for the price. I would be hard-pressed to pick a different car in that price range. This is actually about a couple aftermarket items that interest me.

First, AEM offers a cold air intake (CAI) for his car now. This component adds 5.5 peak whp and 6.6 wheel lb-ft of torque. The largest gains for it are 6.5 whp (at 4700 rpms) and 10.1 wheel lb-ft of torque (at 1500 rpms). That last number would make the car a lot more tractable and easy to drive around town--negating the need to shift as often and keep it in the upper rev range. FYI, these numbers translate to 166 flywheel horsepower (up from 160 stock) and 157 flywheel lb-ft of torque (up from 150 stock). Not a bad little bolt-on for $215 (plus S&H).

Second would be a wheel and tire package. As you will come to know, I would like to put SSR Competitions (wheels) on every car that they will fit. But, believe it or not, I actually looked at a "value" wheel for his car. The Kazera KZ-Us are pretty new to the wheel market. The size I looked at (18X7) weigh only 18.5 lbs, and are amazingly cheap--only $149 per wheel. I added Pirelli PZero Assimetricos (all four corners) to these wheels in 215/45 size, and came up with a wheel and tire package for only $1400. I added H&R springs for $200, bringing the total to less than $1700 (including taxes and shipping). I really think the wheels, tires, and springs would improve the performance of the Mazda 3 a great deal. I would probably prefer some Eibach Pro-Kit (springs) instead of the H&Rs, but as of yet, Eibach has not come out with a set for my brother's car. That is actually a recurring issue for the Mazda 3. It is new enough to the market that the aftermarket manufacturers are still working on parts for it. In particular I am interested in anti-roll bars for this car, which the aftermarket has not provided yet. Just for reference sake, the 18" SSRs would weigh only 16.3 lbs. Granted the reduction in unsprung weight would be nice (the 2.2 lbs per wheel difference translates into the equivalent of taking over 60 pounds off the car itself (which equals a better power to weight ratio)), however, I am not sure that I could justify (strike that--I am not sure that MY BROTHER would justify) spending nearly three times as much for the rims.

Well there you have it. For right around $2000 you could add a little power (including a significant amount of low-end torque), and significantly improve the handling of an already stellar little car.

My "Display Name" explanation.

I thought I should give an explanation for my "display name" (911GT2orHPAR32). This is in reference to two of my favorite cars.

First, the 2004 Porsche 911 GT2, is just sick:
3,131 lbs. curb weight
3.6 liter twin-turbo flat six engine
dry-sump lubrication
rear engine, rear wheel drive
6-speed manual transmission
477 horsepower (5700 rpms)
472 lb-ft of torque (3500-4500 rpms)
power to weight ratio of 6.6
Porsche Ceramic Carbon Brake (PCCB), 6 piston front, 4 piston rear
235/40 front tires, 315/30 rear tires
0-60 time of 4.0 seconds
top speed of 198 mph
drag coefficient of 0.34, including down force on both front and rear axles
MSRP: $191,700 (I've seen asking prices on these as much as $230k)
This car is a monster straight from Zuffenhausen. Further, aftermarket tuners can get crazy numbers out of these cars. I've seen Sportec claim 650hp and 700hp packages and Autothority has a (claimed) 750hp package for this car. Granted, if I am going to be getting those kind of numbers out of this car, I might consider a 911 Turbo instead, sacrificing the extra 374 pounds in exchange for the traction of all wheel drive.

Second, the HPA Motorsports R32 (Volkswagen):
3480 (estimated with additional weight of twin turbos, intercoolers, piping, etc.)
3.2 liter twin-turbo V6 (HPA Stage II)
8.0:1 compression ratio
front engine, all wheel drive
6 speed manual transmission
(claimed) 550 hp--452 whp on a dyno
(claimed) 580 lb-ft of torque--495 wheel lb-ft of torque on a dyno
power to weight ratio of 6.3
225/40 tires at all four corners
0-60 time of 3.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.49 @ 120 mph
slalom speed: 70.5 mph
60-0 braking: 107 feet
top speed: 202 mph (independently verified at track in Germany)
MSRP: $65,000 (R32 price of $30,000 plus $35,000 for HPA Motorsports Stage II package)
You name me a car that can beat this for the price. I honestly don't know of one. This car will beat anything short of a one-liter superbike to 60mph. Any car you can name will be beat to 60mph (Enzo, SLR, S7, Carrera GT, Ford GT, 911 Turbo, GT2, Murcielago, Gallardo, etc., etc.). Further, this VOLKSWAGEN(!!!) will beat most of those cars in the quarter mile as well (even if some might have a higher trap speed). Think about it...this R32 will beat anyone of the cars listed above, and the cheapest one of those is $120k (911 Turbo), with the highest being $600k (or more for the Enzo). As far as top speed goes, a major car magazine recently tested the GT, Carrera GT, and Enzo at a high speed test track. Ford GT = 200 mph; Carrera GT = 201 mph; Enzo = 211 mph. Except for the Enzo, the R32 will even run with these 'supercars' at the top end. For $65,000 you can have a car that will put cars costing 2 to 10 times as much to shame. Pretty impressive.

Well, now you know why my display name is what it is. Perhaps more information than you need to know, but probably not.

I told you these would be random.

I was talking with one of my best friends the other day, and I discussed two interesting things with him:

1. Supposedly the 1996 Ferrari F50GT (only three ever made) weighed only 2000 pounds, had 750 horsepower (at 10,500 rpms), and was faster around the Fiorana track than a 333SP (the Le Mans prototype car). Personally I have a hard time believing the curb weight, and Ferrari has overestimated the power in their cars before, but given those numbers are right it would have a power-weight ratio of 2.7!!! That is better than anything else on my power-weight ratio chart (ME412, Enzo, McLaren, Sportec, etc., etc.)http://www.supercars.net/cars/1996@$Ferrari@$F50%20GTx.html

2. The preproduction numbers and specs for the the upcoming Mazdaspeed 6: 2.3 liter turbocharged four cylinder; 274 horsepower; 280 ft-lbs of torque; 6 speed manual; (and get this) ALL WHEEL DRIVE!!!. It sounds like it is going to be a freaking monster, not to mention completely tuneable. Plus with all that displacement, it should have a TON of torque, especially after tuning. I figure a big front mount intercooler (FMIC), 2 1/2 or 3 inch turbo-back exhaust, some ECU tuning, a boost controller, blow off valve, etc., and 350 horsepower is pretty doable.
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=mazdaSpeed6

First Post.

I am very new to this, so bear with me please. I really enjoy cars, and so I thought I would start a blog with my various thoughts and/or news items about nearly anything car-related. If you have any comments or criticisms, I would love to hear from you. Thanks for reading.