Sam's Car News and Thoughts

Venom GT vs. Veyron SuperSport.

2010-12-02T13:51:00.001-05:00

So, I sent this video

to a couple of my best friends this morning with the subject line, “Ridiculous.” I received a response from one of them asking if I had looked at the Venom GT website. Here is my response to him:

I have.

I would so, so, SO much rather have a Veyron Supersport. Here is why:

Venom GT w/ standard boost
2,685 lbs
725 hp
~ 3.7

Venom GT w/ high boost and 93 octane (which you can't get in: California, Oregon or Washington (at least)):
2,685 lbs
1000 hp
~2.7

Venom GT w/ high boost and 109 octane (which you'll never get except at a race track and you certainly won't use it everyday):
2,685 lbs
1,200 hp
~2.3

Veyron Supersport (pump fuel, warranty, *incredible* research and development, etc.):
4,044 lbs
1186 hp
~3.4

So the Veyron SS is already faster than the "standard" Venom GT. In addition, Hennessey claims the Venom GT will get to 200mph in 15.9 seconds (he also compares that number to the *stock* Veyron at 24.2 seconds). However, the Veyron SS will get to 186 mph in 14 seconds. How much longer will it take to get from 186 to 200 mph? Your guess is as good as mine, but I would guess not much (if any) more than 1.9 seconds. So now, we're at a dead heat to 200mph with the 109 octane Venom GT and pump fuel Veyron SS. Then if you think about how many tries it took to get the Venom GT to put down that time. I would guess dozens, at least. The Veyron SS will do it. All. Day. Long.

Plus, I am sure that the Veyron SS is faster to 60 mph, in the 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, and probably the 3/4 mile and possibly the 1 mile. So except for (maybe) something over 175 mph, which by the way, you're never going to do, the Veyron is faster.

Then, there is the whole issue of warranty. Bugatti has a four year warranty, that covers *everything*. If your car breaks down, they will take care of transportation, supply you with an Audi A8 and fix it under warranty. Damn impressive. Venom GT--no warranty that I'm aware of.

Finally there is the issue of handling/normal driving. I would bet quite a bit of money that the Veyron SS is faster around most tracks than the Venom GT. Who is going to [want to let alone] be able to drive a *rear wheel drive* car that weighs less than 2,700 pounds with 1,200 horsepower [and “only” 335s on the rear end] around a track at anything more than 7/10? No one? A professional driver? Certainly, no one that buys the car. On the other hand, I've heard nothing but high, high praise for the Veyron SS and how it handles (even better than the stock Veyron, which pulled 0.94-0.96 (depending on which magazine) on the skidpad, you'll recall). Are you EVER going to drive a Venom GT in the snow, let alone the rain? Absolutely not. I would have no problem driving the Veyron in the rain, and assuming I could find snow tires in the right sizes (which I'm sure I couldn't), I wouldn't have any problems driving it in the snow as well.

Plus, I hate John Hennessey.

My $0.02.

I left a few things out of the email. First, it is interesting that on his website, he claims he can get the 1,200 claimed horsepower out of 93 octane. However, in previous press releases, he has said the 1,200 is only going to happen on 109 octane.

Also, apparently, he’s pretty bad at math. According to the specifications page, the car has 1,200 horsepower and a curb weight of 2,685 pounds. This would equal a weight to power ratio of 2.2 lbs/hp or a power to weight ratio of 894 hp/ton. For some reason, Hennessey claims 2.6 lbs/hp and 767 hp/ton. If one assumes the curb weight is a given and the horsepower numbers are variables, then his power to weight numbers would reflect 1,029 horsepower. Any ideas? I don’t have any.

Lastly, and I touched on this point, it is simply an issue of traction. The two vehicles have essentially the same power output. The differences however, are as previously stated, the Veyron has AWD, whereas the Venom GT has RWD. And the Veyron has 265 fronts and 365(!) rears, whereas the Venom GT has 235 fronts and 335 rears. Will the Venom GT be fast in a straight line? Sure. Faster than a Veyron SS? I doubt it, but possibly over 175 or 200 mph. For everyday driving down the street, the Veyron will walk away from the Venom GT in almost every situation, The reason is because the Venom will be spinning its (rear only) tires, while the Veyron is getting its power down to (all four) of its (larger) tires.

LinkedIn Profile.

2010-08-11T17:47:00.001-05:00

My Yelp reviews.

2010-08-02T12:03:00.001-05:00

Recent reviews by Sam K.

What's this?

My Avvo profile.

2009-10-29T11:58:00.001-05:00

Samuel J Kuzma

View lawyer's profile

B5 S4 Avant.

2009-02-17T21:46:00.004-05:00

So, for whatever reason one of my favorite cars is the B5 Audi S4 Avant (2000-2002). It’s a wagon, so it’s pretty sleeper. Although I wouldn’t mind a little more rear legroom, it is a nice little car. Add to that the highly lauded VWAG interiors and you have a great package. However, arguably what is most important in this car is that it has the amazing 2.7 liter twin-turbo V6. Although the stock U.S. version wasn’t all that impressive (250 horsepower, 254 lb-ft of torque), the engine has incredible potential.

Just with a chip alone, you can get great power out of the engine. 307 horsepower (on 91 octane fuel) is nothing to cry about. That would put the power to weight ratio at ~12.1 (as compared to the stock car’s ~14.8). That ratio would put it in the realm of: Mitsubishi Evo X MR; E90 335i; and the 2006 Infiniti G35 sedan. Not a bad value for $600.

Then, if you want to get really crazy with it, you can get some big-ass turbos and related components and you can get some very impressive power. Yes, that's over 160 horsepower per liter. Very impressive. And the great thing is that there are a number of companies that offer great packages for the B5 S4. And if more than one company offers off-the-shelf packages making 450-460 horsepower, then you have to believe those power levels are at least relatively reliable.

Anyone who reads this regularly knows that I tout power to weight ratios religiously. Which brings us to one downside about this car: because of all the German engineering, great interior, wagon body-style, etc. that goes into this car, you’re looking at a curb weight of 3,704 pounds. Which is a lot. But if you’re looking at the pump fuel (as opposed to race gas) power packages, you’re still looking at a ratio of ~8.2. Which is awesome. As a reference point, that puts the tuned B5 S4 *ahead* of: the new (2009) Porsche Cayenne Turbo S (~9.4); a chipped 2007 Cayman S (~9.4); a 2008 335i (E90) w/ Dinan S2 package (~9.2); a 2009 BMW M3 sedan (E90)(~9.0); and a 2003 BMW M5 (E39) w/ Dinan S2 (all-motor)(~8.4). It also is right in the hunt with: the 2009 M5 (E60)(~8.0); a 2006 Infiniti G35 sedan with a Vortech supercharger system (~8.0); and a 2004 (996) 911 GT3 (~8.0).

All very impressive company, particularly in a wagon package that looks (and is) 7 years old. You could surprise the hell out of a lot of drivers of very expensive machinery.

Maybe next time I’ll try and get back to my teaser posting from a couple years ago regarding my pick for cross-country driving machinery—the delay may be good as the number of available options has increased…

Good Golly, Miss Molly.

2008-01-03T17:43:00.000-05:00

G-Power is one of the lesser known (in comparison to Hamann or Hartge) BMW tuners in Germany. However, they appear to be putting out some pretty cool stuff. See, e.g., their new M5 Hurricane (also available in M6 guise). More details can be found here, but the important numbers are:
- twin-turbo, intercooled 5.0 liter V10
- 720 hp
- 517 lb-ft torque
- power to weight ratio of ~5.6
- governed to 211 mph
- claimed 0-60 4.2 seconds

In comparison, the stock M5 has a curb weight of 4012 pounds, and has a normally aspirated 5.0 liter V10 that puts out 500 horsepower and 383 lb-ft of torque. That puts the stock power to weight ratio at ~8.0—not too bad for a stock four door sedan.

An interesting side note here is a car that was announced last year. A company called Currency Motor Cars put out what they billed as the fastest M5 in the world. They also applied the twin-turbo treatment to their vehicle and came up with these numbers:
- 810 horsepower
- 733 lb-ft of torque
- curb weight of 4033 pounds
- power to weight ratio of ~5.0
In addition to the go-fast goodies, CMC also did a number to the interior, including such features as crocodile skin headrests, etc. They better have done something pretty damn cool to warrant the $250,000+ premium over a stock vehicle(!). Now, there appears to be some issue with the company. Their website is apparently down and has been for a few weeks at least (which is as long as I’ve been checking). This is, of course, just conjecture but perhaps they blew their wad on putting together their show car and didn’t have the market or other internal business infrastructure to back it up. Hmmm…

For those that are interested in that sort of thing G-Power has also crammed a M5/M6 V10 into an E46 M3 CSL. 3410 pounds, 542 horsepower, 428 lb-ft of torque, a power to weight ratio of ~6.3… Good golly is right!

Tires and rims for a B6 Passat.

2007-11-19T20:16:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note/thought:

While perusing TireRack’s website, a regular habit of mine, I was test-fitting some rims and tires for the new (B6) Passat. Now, on my (B5) Passat, the widest tires I can fit are 245s, and that’s only if the rims have a wide enough offset. However, on the new Passat—a four cylinder, front-wheel drive, German sedan, you can fit 265s(!!!). I put some ridiculous BFG racing slicks in 265/35 18 size on some gorgeous, extremely lightweight Volk Racing wheels. The rims are 18 x 8 inches and only weigh 16.5 pounds each. The subject of unsprung weight is worthy of a Post all its own, but suffice it to say, that reducing unsprung weight on the corners of cars has a drastic impact on all areas of performance—acceleration, handling, braking. I don’t know the stock weight of a B6 Passat rim, but I would guess that the Volk Racing rims take approximately 10 pounds of each corner of the car. Granted, putting 265s on each corner is going to eat away at some of that reduction, but I’d hazard a guess and say that the end result would either break even or possibly reduce overall unsprung weight.

Also, 265 racing slicks would provide a huge amount of grip for the car. Needless to say, this would be something you’d want to do if you were making a track car out of your Passat (a subject Nathan and I have been discussing at great length lately). But it’s pretty freaking cool that you can fit 265s on that car.

The new 335i.

2007-04-18T15:24:00.000-05:00

I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted. I’ve been busy with work and life and all that. Blah, blah.
So, today I am writing about the incredible Teutonic machine that is the new (2007) BMW 335i. The first thing to note is the new model nomenclature. Unlike models in the past, BMW now is calling both sedan and coupe models “335i.” I think this, as most things that make life more simplistic, is good. Here are some of the numbers (for the sedan):
· 3,594 pound curb weight
· Twin-turbo 3.0 liter inline-6 cylinder
· 300 horsepower
· 300 lb-ft of torque (available all the way from 1400 to 5000 rpms!!)
· Power to weight ratio of ~12.0
· 6-speed manual transmission
· 0.30 Cd drag coefficient (pretty impressive)
· 0-60mph in 5.4 seconds (as claimed by BMW—I’ve already seen 4.9 seconds in a mainstream car magazine)
· 29 mph on the highway (allegedly)
· $39,700 base price
· $52,200 “well-equipped” (read: the way I’d build one)
BMW claims, “Turbo lag is a thing of the past…,” and based on the torque spread (a veritable plateau), it certainly appears as if that’s a valid claim. This characteristic can be attributed to the unique positioning of the turbos. BMW has assigned one for three cylinders, twice. In most previous twin turbo applications, the turbos were set up in a sequential manner, such that one would work at lower RPMs (usually to try and replace displacement), and the other would work at the upper end of the rev range. I’d love to see a long term test of a 335i to see if the 29mpg highway rating can be duplicated anywhere other than the EPAs fantasy route. Another issue is the price. Although the base price is pretty impressive for a good-sized German sports sedan with 300 horsepower, if you option it out, it is approaching the price of an E46 M3. At this price you have to bring the S4 (340 horsepower) into the equation at a base price of $47,500 and fully loaded at $55,100. One could certainly argue that with 40 more horsepower and arguably better equipped (plus VWAG’s best-in-the-industry interiors), that the S4 is worth the extra $3k. I’d be hard pressed to decide between the two.
However, to further complicate the equation, Vishnu Tuning has developed a software package for the 335i. If you recall, a previous post here discussed Vishnu’s amazing work with Evos. In this application for the BMW, the software increases engine performance to approximately 370 horsepower and 380 lb-ft of torque (!!). It can be your’s for $1,400. Vishnu claims a 4.5 second 0-60mph time, as well as a 12.8 second ¼ mile time. A 12-second, 3,600 pound, German six-cylinder sports sedan? Incredible. The upgrade would drop the power to weight ratio down from the stock 12.0 to around 9.7, which would put it ahead of the E46 M3 (at 10.3)—not to mention an increase of nearly 120 lb-ft of torque. I’m guessing you’d feel that. For comparison purposes, the aforementioned S4 has a power to weight ratio of 11.4 (that all-wheel drive will get you every time!). So, if we add the software price to the well-equipped price, we have a cost of right around $54,000. At this price point, I think I’ll be taking my chipped 335i over the S4. The actual reason this has been in my head today, is that I was perusing Tire Rack’s website, as I am apt to do, and thought it would be interesting to find out what size tires you can fit on the new 335i. Well, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to find out that you can fit 295 width tires on the rear-end of both the coupe and sedan. In fact, with a slightly larger offset (say around +40mm), you could even fit 305 tires on it. That would be pretty sick. Obviously, the problem with more horsepower (especially if you’re looking at as much as 370 horsepower) is getting that power to the ground. With 295 tires on the back (not to mention 305s), I don’t think you should have much of a problem at all. Additionally, I found a set of OZ Ultraleggera wheels (18s) that weigh only 18.5 pounds each (front) and 20.8 pounds each (rear). We’ve talked before about how important reducing unsprung weight is, and with wheels that light, it would definitely offer a noticeable improvement. Also, the rear OZs for the 335i that I found are, in fact, +40mm offset, so we could fit 305s on there. The only tires I found in that size (305 30 18), however, were DOT competition tires, so not that practical for everyday use, but pretty freaking cool for track days. The new 335i would a hell of a great everyday driver. Add Vishnu software, OZ 18s, and Michelin tires (including 295s on the back) and that would be an incredible package.
Oh by the way, have I mentioned the new Infiniti G35 sedan? 3.5 liter VQ35 V6 engine, 6-speed manual, 306 horsepower, 268 lb-ft of torque, power to weight ratio of 11.5, starting at less than $33,000. But that’s a discussion for another time…
---
UPDATE: So, I just received the new European Car magazine in the mail yesterday. Lo and behold, what did they have on the cover? A comparo between a Vishnu 335i and supercharged E46 M3. It is actually a really good article. You should take a look at it if you get the chance. About the new 335i they say, “…[a]lthough 335i tuning is in its infancy, it’s a forgone conclusion this car will become the Toyota Supra of the Euro Bunch.” That’s a pretty huge compliment. I’ve written about what I think of the 2JZ-GTE engine. And I think that EC’s claim is probably not all that farfetched. Now, back to the article. Probably the most interesting part was the dyno sheet from the Vishnu 335i. It put down 346.8 horsepower and 391.6 lb-ft of torque. If you use a (pretty conservative) 11% driveline loss, then you’re looking at 385 horsepower (!!!) and 435 lb-ft of torque at the crank. That’s simply amazing. So it looks like Vishnu’s claims (discussed above) are actually pretty conservative. I can’t wait to see what the rest of the tuning community comes up with for the 335i.
Also, I realized I forgot to mention something of import in yesterday’s post. The 335i does NOT come with a limited slip (only M cars get them from the BMW factory). So, that is obviously going to have to be on the list with any performance mods you are planning on doing to your 335i. It doesn’t matter if you have almost 400 horsepower if your tires just spin…
---
Next time we’ll discuss the best cross-country road trip/race cars. E63 wagon? S65? M5? S6? S8? Touareg TDI? Nope, it’s not any of these. It DOES, however, have a three-pointed star on the grill…

Really ridiculous car.

2005-11-02T12:07:00.000-05:00

So I was doing some research the other day on the internet and I found some stats and information about the 1991 Mazda 787B. I have always loved that car. My love was refreshed when I drove the car in GT3 on my PS2. The car was probably the best handling car in the game. It was dead-on money from the get go. Well, the stats I uncovered help explain how/why it was such a great car. You know how important I think power-weight ratios are. Well, the 787B was ridiculous. It had a curb weight of 1,831 pounds. It had a R26B engine (*four* rotor, 2.6 liters) that put out 700 horsepower and 448 ft-lbs of torque. From 2.6 liters mind you. Normally aspirated (no turbos). Unreal. If you do the math you'll find that gives the 787 a power-weight ratio of 2.6. Well on my chart/spreadsheet (which covers nearly 600 cars (and growing), both street and race cars) that puts it fourth on the list. And the three vehicles ahead of it don't (or at least shouldn't) really count. First on my list is Steph Papadakis' drag (AEM) Civic (with a twin-turbo 3.3 liter NSX V-6) at 1.5. Second is the 2005 Lol-Ford Champ car at 2.0. Third is a MV Agusta (1000 cc) race bike at 2.4. Those are the only three vehicles with a better power-weight ratio than a 1991 Mazda Le Mans car. Crazy. Also if you look at power-displacement, the car put out 269 horsepower per liter. Some perspective: Honda S2000 (2002 MY), 120 hp/L; BMW M3 CSL, 113 hp/L; Ferrari Enzo, 108 hp/L; Porsche Carrera GT, 106 hp/L; Porsche 911 GT3 (996), 106 hp/L; BMW M3 (E46), 104 hp/L; BMW M5/M6, 100 hp/L; Audi RS4 (2007 MY), 99 hp/L. Those are all normally aspirated cars. Even if you go to forced induction cars, they still can't touch the R26B: Mitsubishi Evo (IX), 143 hp/L; Porsche 911 GT2 (996), 133 hp/L; Subaru STi, 120 hp/L; Subaru WRX, 114 hp/L; Audi RS6, 107 hp/L; Audi S4 (B5), 93 hp/L. The rotary engine really is quite a technological marvel. The 3rd generation RX-7 (turbocharged) had a power-displacement ratio of 196 hp/L and the (new) RX-8 (normally aspirated) has one of 182 hp/L. Pretty damn impressive. There are some issues with oil consumption as well as sub-par fuel mileage, but I think that doesn't take away from how insane the rotary engines are. The 787B is one of the most ridiculous cars of all time. I love it.

2005-11-02T11:05:00.000-05:00

787 at Le Mans - 1991.

2005-11-02T11:03:00.000-05:00

Le Mans - 1991.

2005-11-02T11:01:00.000-05:00

Generations of rotary power.

Banged up baby.

2005-11-02T10:19:00.000-05:00

So I posted a couple pictures of my beat up baby (see below). It doesn't look too bad. And obviously it could have been a lot worse (imagine if I had been a 1/2 second later). I guessed the damage would be around $2,500. One estimate I got was $2,192 and the other was $2,349, so I guess my estimate was pretty close. I'm still waiting on the (his) insurance to get everything in line so I can take it into the shop and get it taken care of. She'll be out of commission for five days. I'm a little disappointed because the options to repair the quarter panel are (1) bend it out and paint and buff it up to fix it, or (2) since it is a unibody, cut out the quarter panel and weld a new panel back in. I don't particularly like either option, but I guess there is not anything I can really do about it. I'll let you know when after she gets fixed...

2005-11-02T10:10:00.000-05:00

Banged up baby.

2005-11-02T10:09:00.000-05:00

Banged up baby (2).

My poor baby.

2005-10-28T10:33:00.000-05:00

So I was on my way to meet some friends for dinner. Some guy pulled out on a red light, and ran into my brand new (for me) car--my baby. For some of you the details will be meaningless, for others they might help. So I'm going south on Silas Creek Parkway from North Point. I am almost to the Fairlawn intersection. I am actually (believe it or not) going the speed limit. I am in the slow (right) lane. From the time that I can see the traffic light until I get to the intersection the light is green (it didn't just change)--probably 10-15 seconds or so. As I am almost to the intersection some dipshit in a truck starts pulling out from Fairlawn (trying to turn left to head North on Silas Creek Parkway). Idiot. He wasn't trying to make it through a dark yellow/red light late. No, it was red, and had been for sometime. Either he was screwing around or trying to show off to his friend in the passenger seat or was tired of waiting for the red light or something, but it was a red light and had been for quite some time. So I pull (in my humble opinion) a stellar driving maneuver, stomping on the gas and swerving into the fast (left) lane to try and get around ahead of him. My other options were (1) continue on my original trajectory and T-bone him (likely totalling my car), or (2) try and swerve around him on the left without speeding up and get T-boned by him. Not good choices. So I almost pull of this incredible move, but he tags my right rear, right behind the rear passenger's door. My ass end comes out, but I correct and get it straightened out no problem. I'm already yelling and cursing and swearing like a damn sailor. So I immediately slow down, pull onto the shoulder and put on my emergency flashers. I'm automatically watching in the rear view mirror to see what he's doing. I figure he'll turn right, pull in behind me and we'll get it straightened out. He sits in the middle of the intersection for a few seconds (the light is still green in my favor/red against him) and then proceeds to continue pulling out and turning left IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM WHERE I AM SITTING. Now I'm all kinds of fired up. So I turn off the emergency flashers, signal, and pull a U-turn through the grass median on Silas Creek, so I am now going North. I get on it (about 80 in a 45 now) because I'm pissed and he is obviously bailing. I catch him right past the BP on North Point as he's getting ready to turn right (South onto University Parkway). I'm already connecting to 911 on my cell phone. There is the red truck, then a white Lincoln behind him and then I'm behind the Lincoln. So he turns right onto University and I'm following him. I can see that the guy in the Lincoln is also going the same way as him, right behind him and he also is on his phone. So the guy in the truck accelerates up University, then turns right onto Fairlawn. He continues across Polo into Wake's campus. By this time I've explained to the 911 operator that I got hit by some guy and that he bailed and I'm following him. It is also pretty clear by now that the guy in the Lincoln is also following him. So we go through campus, take the right to take us past the Divinity School. Finally in front of the Art Museum (at least I think that is what it is, the guy in the Lincoln pulls out beside the guy in the truck and starts blowing his horn and pointing over to the side of the road. The guy pulls into a parking area, with a curb in front of him (so he'd have to hop a curb to get away going forward), the Lincoln pulls right beside him so he can't get back out into the road, and I pull in behind him so he can't back up either. Some little teenager hops out of the truck. And another rolls out of the passenger side. The cops are on their way. A couple minutes later the cops show up and fill out an accident report and everything. Supposedly they got him (17 year old little punk) for running the red light and leaving the scene of an accident. So I'm sitting on the curb in the middle of Wake's campus with all the undergrad kids rolling by staring. The whole time I'm steaming. It's building up and building up. I'm furious. My car is my baby. I love her. It is my first (pretty) new car that I've ever gotten and I absolutely adore it. Also, as you may or may not have been able to tell yet, I have a bit of a thing for automobiles. The guy not only ran a completely, unequivocally red light, but then hit me, then bailed, then tried to ditch me. I'm furious. So I get an accident report from the cop. He says he's going to get the kid for the two things I mentioned above. Obviously I am not going to be making it to dinner at this point. Then I called Laura to see if I could go over to her house, because I'm absolutely furious and if I get anywhere near that kid I'm going to beat the living crap out of him and it's good the cop is there because otherwise he might not be living anymore and can I come over to her house to relax and calm down a little bit. So she said yes, so I headed that way. I called my (poor) mom and bitched to her. I cursed a lot. I felt badly. But she handed the phone off to my brother-in-law, so I hope I didn't offend her too much. So long story short, I got hit, had to run after the guy to catch him, and my baby got jacked up. Obviously, the glass-is-half-full side of it is that (1) I didn't get hurt, and (2) my baby didn't get hurt more badly than it did. I guess. I'm still pretty pissed at that kid. He *never* apologized to me the whole time I was sitting there behind his car while the cop was filling out the paperwork. I wanted to beat his bitch-ass. I called my insurance after I got to Laura's and they got a claim going for me and stuff and said that most likely the kid's insurance should cover all my stuff AND pay for my deductible, so that would be really nice. Laura made me dinner, and helped calm me down so that was nice of her. She takes good care of me. I'm going into the body shop tomorrow after school and I'll let you know what the damage actually is...My prediction is: right rear quarter panel and rear bumper need replacing (plus the sundry trim and lighting)--parts + labor = $2,500. We'll see. I'll post some pictures later of the damage (it doesn't look very bad)...

Autocrossing.

2005-10-23T13:09:00.000-05:00

I went down to an autocross they had in Winston-Salem this morning. It was quite interesting. There were some really cool cars there, and some that were not as cool. An STi put up the best time (1 minute, 41 seconds), but what was really impressive was a 3rd gen RX-7 (possibly my favorite car of all time) putting up a 1 minute, 43 second lap. We talked with the guy between laps and he said it was stock except for a cat-back exhaust, front anti-roll bar, tires, rotors and pads. Pretty impressive that a 255 horsepower (stock) car that is over 10 years old is able to (almost) keep up with a brand new rally-based 300 horsepower, all-wheel-drive monster. I love RX-7s...

2005-10-23T13:07:00.000-05:00

RX-7 (paddock).

2005-10-23T13:06:00.001-05:00

RX-7 (start line).

2005-10-23T13:06:00.000-05:00

RX-7.

2005-10-23T13:05:00.000-05:00

RX-7.

2005-10-23T13:04:00.001-05:00

RX-7 (finish line).

2005-10-23T13:04:00.000-05:00

Z06 (start line).

2005-10-23T13:03:00.002-05:00

Z06.

2005-10-23T13:03:00.001-05:00

Z06.

2005-10-23T13:03:00.000-05:00

Z06.

2005-10-23T13:02:00.001-05:00

Z06 (finish line).

2005-10-23T13:02:00.000-05:00

STi (start line).

2005-10-23T13:01:00.001-05:00

STi.

2005-10-23T13:01:00.000-05:00

STi.

2005-10-23T13:00:00.001-05:00

STi.

2005-10-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

STi.

"Drivers (no longer) wanted?"

2005-10-18T10:09:00.000-05:00

So, I have some pretty serious issues with VAG's restrictions on one's ability to build the new (B6) Passat to one's liking. My car (B5.5) came with: the four cylinder (1.8 liter turbocharged inline-four), manual transmission (5-speed), leather seating, Monsoon (premium) sound system. I can't build a comparable car on the new platform. I would *like* to build a B6 Passat with: the four cylinder (new 2.0 liter turbocharged inline-four), manual transmission (new 6-speed), leather seating, and the premium sound system. I can't. Here's how it goes. I try to bulid a "2.0T" model Passat. So far so good. Then I pick the exterior color I want. So far still so good. Then I pick leather interior. Here is where the problems start. It then requires me to pick a package ("Package #2") with a stereo with either the XM or Sirius option. In and of itself I am all right with this. If I had a choice, I don't want a $2,825 package with options I don't really want just to get leather interior. Then the problems really start. I choose the XM stereo option and then I am forced to agree to further options including leather interior (which is fine--it's what I want), the premium sound system (great--I always want that), AND the 6-speed *automatic* transmission (at an additional cost of $1,075). BIG problem. I don't want (and won't get) a car with an automatic. So, I try to get around it. I *settle* for leatherette interior (yuck), and move onward to options. Two more problems come up. I try and get the Cold Weather Package for $225. Seems simple enough. Nope. I then have to choose (again) between XM and Siruis (this time a $1,625 package). Again, I don't really want it (well, I don't want to pay for it anyway), but I'll get it if I have to in order to have heated seats and mirrors. Nope. Again I have to select a further package including the $1,075 automatic transmission. Dammit! Ok, so no Cold Weather Package. Let's at least have a pimp sound system to go with our leatherette seats. Nope. I click on the premium sound system option, and again I have to choose between Package #1 ($1,625 plus $1,075 for the automatic) or Package #2 ($2,825 plus $1,075 for the automatic). Either way I'm out a *minimum* of $2,700 and I have a freaking automatic. We can't have that. So essentially the only alternative I am left with is to get the "2.0T" model, manual transmission, leatherette (not leather) interior, and NO premium sound system. That's ridiculous. Volkswagen's catchphrase is supposed to be "Drivers Wanted." Well true drivers are going to want a manual transmission, nice seats and good tunes to listen to. That isn't that much to ask, and you can't get these things together on the B6 Passat.

Maybe you could go and ask your dealer to custom option one for you, but I don't know if they would be able to get you one they way you want or not. I would be surprised if you can get one the way I want. Very frustrating.

I love station wagons...

2005-10-18T09:29:00.000-05:00

Matt asked me this question:

"You've brought up Jettas and wagons within two posts, so this is more or less relevant: any idea whether VW will be producing a wagon for the 2006 redesigns of the Jetta and Passat? The VW website no longer shows a Passat wagon and the Jetta wagon is the 2005 body style."

Great questions; as (you probably know) that issue is close to my heart. As an aside, the *only* thing I would change (from the factory) about my Passat is if it could have been a wagon. It has all the options I want and the drivetrain I want, color, etc., but if it was exactly like it is, except in wagon style, it would be *money*.

Back to the question at hand--it is my understanding Volkswagen will be releasing the new Passat (B6) wagon next February (2006). That will be very cool. I have some issues as to Volkswagen's new restrictions as to building Passats to your liking, but I will address that in another post.

The question about Jetta wagons is a little more difficult. For a time Volkswagen would not commit to the statement that they were even going to make a (new) Jetta wagon (MkV). However, the latest news I have heard is that they *are* going to make a Jetta wagon. Well, yes and no. It might not be under the "Jetta" moniker. There are some issues with the required re-tooling at the factory in Mexico that makes the MkV Jetta. Apparently they have to switch it all up to make the wagon. So what they're thinking about doing, is making a wagon, but under a name other than Jetta and with different body-cladding. They are planning on putting the Haldex 4Motion feature on it, and making it a little farther up-market than the Jetta itself. However, nothing is set in stone as of yet, because whatever they choose to do, it will require (as discussed above) the retooling of the factory in Mexico. The rumors I've heard (read) are that it won't be at U.S. dealers until 2007 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 2008. Don't hold your breath...

Hmmm...

2005-10-10T20:56:00.000-05:00

So the new (2006) Jetta GLI has a 180 mph speedometer. Interesting...

I love 540i wagons.

2005-10-07T09:34:00.000-05:00

I think they're absolutely cool as hell. V8 power, wagon practicality. Throw in a Dinan package (412 horsepower, 397 lb/ft of torque; power to weight ratio of 10.0) and you have quite the little sleeper. The ONLY thing that is a drawback for me is it is only available in an automatic transmission.

I *really* hope they bring a M5 wagon over here for the E60 platform. That would be ridiculous. 507 horsepower, 7-speed SMG transmission--in a wagon?!?! Where do I sign up?

My mom always told me...

2005-10-06T10:12:00.000-05:00

...people often have more money than sense. Lindsay Lohan crashed her Mercedes yesterday (second time in four months):

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Lohan-Accident.html

She (and her passenger) are fine. The issue I have is that the car she wrecked (this time at least) was a new Mercedes Benz SL65--one of the sickest cars on the road today.

http://www.tuningnews.net/news/040407a/mercedes-sl65-amg.php
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?article_id=9743§ion_id=15&page_number=3
http://automobilemag.com/reviews/convertibles/0504_mercedes_benz_sl65_amg/index.html

Some of the SL65's features include: 6.0 liter twin turbo V-12; 4,564 pound curb weight; 604 horsepower; 738 ft-lb of torque; power to weight ratio of 7.6; 0-60 mph in the high 3s (I've seen 3.8 and 3.9); 1/4 mile in the high 11s at nearly 120 mph. The power to weight ratio puts it at or ahead of such cars as: the C5 Z06, 360 Modena, 996 Turbo S, 996 Turbo with X50 package, 996 GT3, C6 Corvette, the new (E60) M5, etc., etc. The SL65 is ridiculous. I have seen one once in my life (in NYC this summer). The car looks absolutely sick. Also, FYI, the asking price for one of these ranges from $170,000 and $200,000 right now. And Lindsay f***ing Lohan wrecked (at least one of these). I'm sure she deserves and appreciates her car. She certainly appreciates its 12 air bags. More money than sense...

2005-09-26T12:26:00.001-05:00

ZX-14.

2005-09-26T12:26:00.000-05:00

ZX-14 (picture 2).

2005-09-26T12:25:00.000-05:00

ZX-14 (picture 3).

Ridiculous.

2005-09-26T12:22:00.000-05:00

So, Kawasaki took the wraps off it's new mega-bike this weekend (see http://www.zx14ninja.com/). They are calling it the ZX-14. The thing is going to be a monster. It is replacing the venerable ZX-12, and is marketed against (mainly) the Suzuki Hayabusa, but also the (discontinued) Honda 1100XX. Some of the more important numbers are 1352cc inline four cylinder, approximately 200 horsepower, and an estimated top speed of 200 mph. Kawasaki hasn't released a curb weight yet, so that will be important information to know. Either way, this bike is ridiculous. It will be interesting to see a head-to-head comarison between the ZX-14 and the Hayabusa. Also, the rumor-mill has it that Suzuki will be releasing a new 'Busa in a year or so. I guess the horsepower wars (see M-B AMG cars, for example) aren't limited just to four wheeled vehicles. See above for a picture...

8.8 @ 148.

2005-09-22T08:42:00.000-05:00

So I have a new roommate. As I was walking my dog through my parking lot two days ago I noticed a new car in it. It was an older Mustang, somewhere in the 1995-1997 body style. As I was walking by, I first noticed that he had powder-coated (black) the stock three-spoke wheels. Then I noticed that it had been lowered quite a bit--there was almost no wheel gap. As I walked around it, I noticed the *biggest bottle of nitrous I've EVER seen in my entire life* in the back seat. It is (literally) larger than a SCUBA air tank. It is probably 15 inches in diameter and about 30-36 inches in length. The thing is a monster. So then I look a little more closely. I see the car has 275/40 BFG Drag Radial's (on the stock rims)...nice. Now, I'm really curious. I see four point harnesses on both the driver and passenger seat. However, when I look in the front, I do *not* see an intercooler, so I figure there is no turbo kit. Lastly, I look at the back and I notice that he has taken the (stock) spoiler off the trunk deck (very nice) and I see no exhaust coming out the rear--so I figure he has just a dump exhaust coming out the bottom of the engine, with no real exhaust pipes, let alone mufflers.

I finally put two and two together and realize this must be my new roommate's car. So last night I get the chance to ask him about it. He starts telling me a little bit about it, and I am *floored*. Here are some of the things I learned: forged pistons, three-plate clutch, equal-length headers, ignition, MAF, etc., etc. Then I learn two more incredible things: 116 octane race fuel and a 300 (!!!) shot of nitrous. I was flabbergasted. So he tells me he goes to an 1/8th mile track once a week and a quarter mile track once a month. He then tells me something that I still have a little difficulty believing, but here it goes: his best ET is 8.8 seconds (in the quarter) with a trap speed of 148. He said that was with a 300 shot of nitrous in first, second, third AND fourth gears. Finally he said he is having a motor built that he should have put in not too long from now. It is a 347 stroker motor with 11.0:1 compression pistons.

Anyways, I asked if I could go with him sometime and he said yes, so I am looking forward to that. It wasn't clear whether I can go and watch him race (which would be cool enough), or if I can ride shotgun with him (which would be ridiculous). I'll let you know more, when I know more...

New (rear) brakes installed...

2005-09-06T17:23:00.000-05:00

I got my brakes installed last Thursday. Here are my initial observations and thoughts: There is a definitely noticeable improvement in braking power. However, I can tell how inferior the fronts are now in comparison to the rears. Additionally, I can also tell how spongey the pedal feels now; I could really use the stainless steel brake lines. But, I can definitely feel an improvement and look forward to at least getting the fronts replaced with equivalent parts, and ideally to get the SS lines as well. Great purchase, definitely worth my money. So far I have experienced none of the noise reported by some other people.

2005-09-06T17:06:00.000-05:00

I need to wash my car and wheels, but you can see the rotors pretty well.

2005-09-06T17:05:00.000-05:00

Brembos...

New rear brakes for the Passat.

2005-08-31T22:02:00.000-05:00

Well after 53,000 miles (see Post below) the Passat is ready for some new rear brakes. I checked prices for OEM (VW) parts, and the rotors were $162 and the bads were $65 for a parts total of $227. Well, out of curiosity (actually because I wanted better parts) I checked the aftermarket to see what was available for my car. I found some very interesting parts, as well as prices. Tirerack offers Brembo rotors for my car. They are OEM size so they are meant for the stock caliper. The official name is Brembo Sport Slotted rotors (see http://www.tirerack.com/brakes/brakes.jsp?make=Brembo&model=Sport+Slotted+Rotor for information). They are (obviously) slotted rotors. Although many aftermarket brake kits offer cross-drilled (and some manufacturers as well), I have heard that slotted cool nearly as well and last longer too. We'll see. I also found upgraded pads as well from Hawk. They are the Hawk HPS High Performance Street brake pads (see http://www.tirerack.com/brakes/brakes.jsp?make=Hawk&model=HPS+Street+brake+pads for more information). So, I added up the price and the total came to $231 and change (including 2 day shipping). So essentially I got superior performing parts for $4 more than the OEM components. The braking performance should be noticeably improved, and that will be accentuated when I need to replace the fronts and do so with the Brembo/Hawk combination there as well. I have been looking for, but unfortunately unable to find braided stainless steel brake lines, but I hope to do that as well. The brake lines added to the Brembo/Hawk combination I think should really improve on the performance of the stock brakes. I am getting them put on tomorrow and hope to be able to take some pictures of them installed before they put the wheels on. Hopefully more on this later...

2005-08-31T20:58:00.000-05:00

Back (inside) side of Brembo rotor...

2005-08-31T20:57:00.000-05:00

Brembo Sport Slotted Rotor...

2005-08-31T20:56:00.000-05:00

New pads and rotors...

Road trippin' summer...

2005-08-21T12:34:00.000-05:00

So I put a lot of miles on my car this summer. If you'll recall, I bought it about four months ago and it had just under 40k miles on it. Well, it now has nearly 53k miles on it. Here is why: After picking it up in Ohio, had to drive back down to Winston via Asheville (long story); mileage = 518. I went to the beach with my friends after exams; mileage = 564. I drove down to see my brother; mileage = 129. From there I drove up with him and his wife to meet my family in Williamsburg, Virginia, went out to Norfolk, then back to Winston; mileage = 633. I drove out to California (from North Carolina) to visit my best friend in Redlands via Asheville, North Carolina; mileage = 2,413. From there I drove up the coast to see some friends at Pismo Beach and then continued on up to Portland, where I was spending the summer; mileage = 1,121. Commuting to work every day from Portland to Hillsboro for the whole summer; mileage (daily round trip) = 44. Trip to Salem from Portland for work; mileage = 102. One trip to Mount Rainier, plus driving around Mount Rainier National Park; mileage = 476. One trip to Walla Walla from Portland; mileage = 499. And the grandaddy of them all, Portland to Winston-Salem, via Ruffin, South Carolina (I had to pick up a puppy dog); mileage = 3,191. That's how the majority of the miles got piled on there. But the majority of them (~90% or more) are highway miles, so hopefully it wasn't too hard on her.

Here are some numbers for the latest (and greatest) trip I made. Portland, Oregon to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, via Ruffin, South Carolina: 3,191 miles; it took me 55 hours (including 8 1/2 hours of sleep and one hour spent picking up the puppy); 120.698 gallons of premium unleaded consumed; average fuel economy was 26.4 miles per gallon; average speed (including gas, sleep, and puppy stops) was 58.0 miles per hour. For the first 900 miles I averaged (including gas stops) 74.8 miles per hour, which if you do the math including the stops for fuel, is hauling ass. During one hour's period of time I averaged 85 miles per hour (including slowing down for traffic, etc., etc.). Those are some of the numbers from my trip. I hope next May is the last time I ever have to do it again. It will be a lot slower in May--moving truck and all, you know...

2005-08-21T11:50:00.001-05:00

About five hours into the trip...

2005-08-21T11:50:00.000-05:00

Making pretty good time through southern Idaho...

2005-08-21T11:48:00.000-05:00

50 hours in...I look it, don't I?

My new baby...

2005-04-18T11:45:00.000-05:00

I got a new car. This weekend I picked up a 2003 Volkswagen Passat 1.8T with a 5-speed manual. It is a great little car and I have enjoyed it very much even though it has only been a couple days. It has what Volkswagen calls a Blue Anthracite exterior and black leather interior. It has the Monsoon sound system (which kicks ass, by the way), and heated seats, etc., etc. It is pretty darn nice. The turbo comes on pretty strong around 3,000 rpms. As a small aside here, APR offers a (1 bar) chip that bumps the horsepower up to 214 (from 170) and the torque up to 247 (from 166), so that would turn it into a little monster. With the chip the power to weight ratio would be better than a TSX, IS300, SVT Focus, etc., etc. Not too bad from a little four banger four-door big German sedan. Anyway, the previous owner has a pretty dark tint on it. I am slightly worried about that because my last car had a tint on it (about half as dark as that on my Passat) and I got stopped twice because of it. But it seems like it is kind of a crap shoot, because I have seen lots of cars with dark tints on them. We'll see, and I'll keep my fingers crossed. I'll keep you posted as to how things go with it...

2005-04-18T11:38:00.000-05:00

Note the 5-speed and the 160 mph speedo...

2005-04-18T11:37:00.000-05:00

It will have new license plates soon.

2005-04-18T11:36:00.000-05:00

My new baby.

Crazy, crazy stuff...

2005-02-04T20:17:00.000-05:00

The most recent AutoWeek magazine (see www.autoweek.com) has a news flash in it regarding the fastest road-registered car. The record for nearly seven years had been the almighty McLaren F1 at 240.1 mph. Most people didn't think it would be beaten, except possibly by the upcoming Bugatti Veyron (see http://www.bugatti-cars.com/bugatti/index.html). In fact, many in the industry did NOT expect the Veyron to beat that number, because although it should have the power to do so (987 hp and 938 lb-ft of torque from a quad (!!!) turbo, 64 valve, 8.0 liter W-16 engine), the company has been having aerodynamic difficulties in addition to problems finding a tire company to build a 250 mph tire. Therefore, the latest news was the company had dropped its target top speed from the 250 originally quoted to a 'more modest' 230 mph. In that case, obviously, the McLaren's record would be safe. However, the news in AutoWeek claims that a German Porsche tuner company, 9ff (see http://www.9ff.de/Englisch-htm/home-eng.htm), last December set a new record at the Nardo track in Italy. AutoWeek claims the new time is 241.1 mph, while the company's website claims 243 mph. Either way it is crazy, crazy fast, especially coming from the car it did. The car was...? You guessed it, my favorite car, the Porsche 911 GT2. Here are some numbers from the tuned GT2: 3.8 (up from stock 3.6) liter twin-turbo inline six; 828 horsepower (!!!) at 7200 rpm; 649 lb-ft of torque at 6450; 2860 pound curb weight. That translates to a 3.5 power-weight ratio, which would put it in a third place tie on my power-weight ratio chart (behind the F50GT (see Post below), the ME412 (see Post below), and tied with the McLaren F1 LM version. Good sweet gracious. The German company says they are planning on building up to 20 cars at $400,000 a pop. Pretty crazy. I'll take two please.

Possible cars to buy:

2005-02-04T10:17:00.000-05:00

So, I have been looking at a couple different (used) cars that very well might be my next car purchase. I have found a handful that I like, some more likely than others. Here they are, in no particular order:

1994 Ford Taurus SHO:

four door sedan
front-wheel drive
3.0 V6
220 horsepower
5-speed manual
71k miles
$6k

1995 Lexus SC300:

two door coupe
rear-wheel drive
3.0 V6
215 horsepower (I think)--BUT, see earlier Post regarding dream-car SC/Supra swap
5-speed manual
87k miles (but remember the 2JZ-GTE swap)
$11,000

2003 Subaru Impreza WRX

four door sedan (or wagon)
all-wheel drive
2.0 turbocharged inline four
227 horsepower
5-speed manual
31-32k miles
$17,000

2001 Audi A4 Quattro

four door sedan (or wagon)
all-wheel drive
1.8 turbocharged inline four
170 horsepower (stock, but see earlier Post regarding the 1.8T in the Passat)
5-speed manual
33-37k miles
$17,000

Now a little explanation:

The SHO was my very first car, so that has a special place in my heart. It was first produced for MY 1989, and at the time was really quite a rocket. It had a Yamaha 3.0 V6 engine that produced 220 horsepower, and had a 7000 rpm redline. I went the fastest I have ever gone (top speed) in a 1993 model (146 mph (indicated)). I had a ton of fun in that car, and the handling was quite impressive. I had upgraded it with Eibach springs, Koni Sport struts, anti-roll bars, 18-inch wheels and 225/45 Michelin Pilot Sports. The thing stuck like glue. There is a corner out on a country road that has a 35 mph sign for it. One night I took the 35 mph corner at 90 mph and the car didn't lose traction or even squeal it's tires. My record for a 25 mph on-ramp to a freeway is 72 mph. The thing was pretty impressive. However, the thing was a nightmare in terms of maintenance, as I spent a small (not so small actually) fortune on repairing various things on it. Plus, the parts are astronomically expensive (think German car parts pricing on a Ford). So this is really more of a dream, than a really viable option. However, someday when I am making decent money, I would love to have a (relatively) low mileage 1993-95 Ford Taurus SHO with a 5-speed manual in my garage.

The Lexus we have talked about earlier. It is a great car right off the bat, with a nice inline-six cylinder and 5-speed manual transmission. It is rear wheel drive (as all proper sports cars should be), and comes with Toyota reliability. I have seen many cars advertised with between 150,000 and 200,000 miles on them. The thing, if taken care of, will run forever. Plus, (and this is the primary reason I am interested in it) you can swap the Supra drivetrain into it and it will bolt right up. That is 'bolting right up' 320 horsepower and a six-speed manual. Not to mention the Supra 2JZ-GTE is one of (if not THE) most tunable engine on the market. Again, I would recommend seeing an earlier Post for the some of the potential that this engine has. This is actually a relatively realistic car because it has relatively low miles (for a Toyota), and is a lot closer to a price range that I will hopefully be able to afford within the next couple of years.

The Subaru is a great little car. I have seen stock 0-60mph times of 5.5 seconds, with a top end of around 150mph. This engine (EJ20) is also incredibly tunable. I have seen a cat-back system alone improve horsepower (at the wheels) to a dyno-proven increase of 15 horsepower (nearly 20 horsepower at the crank). A further indication of its potential is the myriad of tuners that have coaxed more than 300 horsepower from this car, with no internal modifications, and only a handful of external ones. On a side note, I recently looked at a website that boasts both a 580 and a 600 horsepower WRX (see www.airpowersystems.com for more information). Some modifications I would like to do to a WRX if I were to get one include: turbo-back exhaust (probably a Greddy, but possibly a HKS or B&B (see www.bbtriflo.com)); lightened flywheel; Exedy clutch; blow off valve; AEM (see www.aempower.com form more information) EMS engine management; turbo timer and APS front mount intercooler to start. This is a somewhat realistic car as you can get one with pretty low miles (less than 40k) for less than $17k. Some drawbacks of it are its 'boy-racer' looks, only average interior quality, and a less than stellar shifter.

The Audi would probably be the most realistic alternative. This would be a great car. It would be practical (wagon body style), sporty (turbocharged inline four), and the interior quality of Audi vehicles has been claimed by many automobile magazines to be the best in the business. I have also previously Posted about the 1.8T engine. This is a great platform to build off of. Although it only comes stock with 170 horsepower, it has a great deal more potential (even if not as much as the WRX or SC). I would first put a front mount intercooler on it (probably either an ABD Racing (see www.abdracing.com) or APR (see www.goapr.com)); turbo back exhaust; at least an APR or GIAC (see www.giacusa.com) chip, but possibly a full APR kit (APR's Stage III kit puts out 280 horsepower). I would prefer a wagon, however, Shelle doesn't particularly like how the wagon looks, so it might have to be a sedan. The definite plus of a sedan is it comes with 110 pounds LESS curb weight than the wagon, which would help with the power-weight ratio tremendously. You can find a 2000-2002 A4 with the 1.8T and a manual and Quattro (all-wheel drive) with less then 40,000 miles for less than $17,000. This very well might be the next car in the Kuzma garage (assuming there is ANY new car in the garage).

Well, those are what I am looking at right now. All would be good choices, but the Audi is probably at the top of the list at the moment.

Nathan's and my trip to the Porsche dealer.

2004-12-01T15:47:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-12-01T10:43:00.000-05:00

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...

2004-12-01T10:17:00.000-05:00

It has an aftermarket front end.

2004-12-01T10:16:00.000-05:00

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

2004-12-01T10:12:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-12-01T10:08:00.000-05:00

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

V12 powered Range?

2004-11-02T10:14:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-28T14:15:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-10-28T14:05:00.000-05:00

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...

2004-10-26T10:29:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-23T23:50:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-11T00:50:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-10T23:10:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-10T23:09:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-09T16:37:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-09T16:35:00.001-05:00

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.

2004-10-09T16:35:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-09T15:39:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-09T15:38:00.000-05:00

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

The Beast.

2004-10-08T20:28:00.000-05:00

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...

2004-10-08T12:48:00.000-05:00

...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.

2004-10-07T23:37:00.000-05:00

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

Three supercars.

2004-10-07T20:45:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-10-07T19:49:00.000-05:00

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!! :) )

2004-10-07T09:42:00.001-05:00

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.

2004-10-07T09:42:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-07T09:41:00.000-05:00

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

2004-10-07T09:39:00.000-05:00

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

Performance deal of all time?

2004-10-05T22:51:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-05T13:37:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-05T12:34:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-05T11:46:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-05T11:41:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-05T11:37:00.000-05:00

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

Acura TSX.

2004-10-05T09:41:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-04T22:17:00.000-05:00

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...

2004-10-04T20:12:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-04T19:37:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-04T18:22:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-10-04T18:12:00.000-05:00

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.