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.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
New Favorite Car?
Well, after seeing the HPA Motorsports R32 in the Car and Driver Supercar shootout, I may have changed my mind about it being one of my favorite cars. Somehow the price now is $82,000 (!!!), and the numbers C&D got were 0-60 in 3.6 seconds; 1/4 mile in 11.7 seconds at 119 mph. You'll recall that Motor Trend got 3.2 seconds, and 11.49 seconds at 120 mph. Also in Motor Trend, the quoted price was $59k; then if you look at HPA's website, it was $65k (see Post below); and now the as-tested price in Car and Driver is $82,000 (!!!). Furthermore, on the website, HPA is claiming 452 wheel horsepower and 495 wheel lb-ft of torque; however, in the Car and Driver article, they are only claiming 450 hp and 475 lb-ft BOTH numbers at the FLYWHEEL. Needless to say, this reduces the value/performance ratio a great deal. The actual performance numbers are a little disconcerting, but given track and weather variables, I can see the differences. However, the horsepower and torque numbers require some sort of explanation, of which I have none. The most disturbing thing for me is the price discrepancy. From $60,000 in the Motor Trend article, to $82,000 in the Car and Driver, is inexplicable. That is a 39% (!!!) increase in price. Furthermore, the dollar/horsepower ratio goes from $108/hp (in Motor Trend) to $182/hp in the Car and Driver article. That is a huge increase, and to me, unforgivable.
So, I may have changed over to a (tuned) Evo for my (relatively) reasonable supercar. Here are the numbers from the same C&D article for a (Vishnu) tuned Evo. That is looking closer to the HPA R32 I had in mind when I first heard about it.
$57,000
3217 lbs
475 (claimed) hp
450 (claimed) lb-ft of torque
power to weight ratio of 6.8
0-60: 3.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.6 seconds at 120 mph
However, here are some mods that can be done to an Evo, that it is reported should raise the performance significantly:
2005 Evo MR: $35,600
2005 Evo MR (with options/accessories I would like): $37,000
Mods:
AEM EMS (with UEGO): $2,235
HKS Blow-off Valve: $350
Greddy Cat-back exhaust (Titanium (10 lbs)): $885
B&B downpipe (3"): $330
AEM short ram: $210
Toda stroker engine kit (2.3L): $3100
HKS EVC Ver 2 (boost controller): $575
HKS turbo timer (Type-0): $90
With just the EMS, turbo-back exhaust, and boost controller, Easytrix Racing has seen around 320 whp. This translates to around 390 horsepower at the flywheel. I think with the intake and Toda kit we could easily see around 450 at the flywheel, not to mention a TON more torque because of the extra 326 cc's of displacement (an increase of over 17%). Furthermore, with the boost controller it would hold the boost at 19 psi all the way to redline (right now it drops off to 16 psi at the upper rpm range). I think that one could probably raise the boost controller and EMS to allow as much as 1.5 bars of boost (~22 psi), and furthermore to allow for 92 octane gas (as opposed to the 91 crap that is sold in California), and that would probably raise the horsepower to around 500 at the flywheel. This would also reduce the power to weight ratio to 6.4, which would be pretty impressive. As far as the turbo timer and BOV, those components would be more for safety and longevity than for power. After these mods, obviously the next step would be a larger intercooler and at that point in time, the stock turbo would probably be pretty much maxed out, so we would need to look at upgrading that. Then, the next logical step would be a set of cams. But for around $47,500 (with stock intercooler and stock turbo), you could have a 500 hp, all-wheel drive, 6-speed manual, great handling car that can seat three of your friends pretty comfortably. This would be around $106/hp.
Some other mods that I would probably want to do would be to get 17" SSR Competitions, a rear anti-roll bar (Hotchkis Tuning), a lightweight aluminum flywheel, and Exedy dual plate clutch. Furthermore, the $37,000 price quoted above includes front and rear strut tower braces. With these mods, it would turn a great car into a car that could run with supercars, both in terms of straightline acceleration, as well as handling on a road course. Not to mention, that the 4G63 engine is damn near indestructible, as well as having almost limitless tuning potential (in the last couple months I have seen two articles featuring Evos with 900+ WHEEL horsepower and 700+ WHEEL horsepower (on the bottle). It would be a pretty great little car for not TOO exorbitant a price, that would run with (literally) almost anything on the road. This may have replaced my HPA R32 as a favorite, "attainable" car. I haven't decided for sure, but I am leaning towards the Evo.
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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Freaking Idiots...
So, I have a little rant to go on here. Sometimes (often) I see some really interesting things at the (private) college I attend. This morning I saw something that proves that money can't buy brains. Some undergraduate kid was driving a brand new Range Rover ($90k), and on the back he had put a "V12" symbol. For those that don't know, the Range comes with a V-8, and no V-12 is optional. So, he took the time, and spent the money, to buy a V-12 badge (at least I think it was from a BMW, not a Benz (the Range has a BMW-sourced V-8)) and have it put on the back of his Range Rover THAT HAS A FREAKING V-8. What a freaking idiot. I almost said something to him at the coffee shop we were at...but I let it go (kind of). I thought I would just vent to you instead.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Shelle's car.
As you will come to know, lightening a car is nearly as important to me as adding power components to the engine. This Post is going to be about potential lightening that can be done to my ex-fiance, Shelle's car. She has a 2000 Honda Civic EX sedan (with a 5-speed (or course)). It is a great little car. However, I do have long-term ideas for it, the main one being an Edelbrock turbo kit (dyno-proven to make 203 horsepower and 157 lb-ft of torque). However, even with that power (a huge increase from the stock 127 hp), her car will "only" have a power to weight ratio of about 12.7 (down from 19.8 stock). I put the quotes around the word only, because at 12.7, that will put her Civic AHEAD (better power to weight) of the SRT-4 (see Post below), the G35 sedan, the last M3 sedan (1998 model year), the ITR, a Mini Cooper S Works (200 hp), the WRX, the R32 and the B5 Audi S4. Not bad for a little SOHC four cylinder. However, with some lightening we can improve that number even more. Here is what I have in mind (all the numbers are really guess-work, but I think they are reasonable estimations):
- Carbon fiber hood and trunk: ~25 lbs (this swap removed 31 pounds from a SRT-4, but Shelle's car does not have the giant, gawdy wing)
- Carbon fiber (front) fenders: ~10 lbs (I figure if 25 lbs for hood and trunk, then 5 lbs per front fender is reasonable)
- dry cell battery: ~15 lbs (the switch to an Optima battery in an RX-7 was good for 16 lbs)
- aluminum flywheel and underdrive pulleys (alternator and power steering): ~10 lbs (an aluminum flywheel alone cuts 14 lbs off a G35)
- seats: ~50 lbs (this is a guess; the seats I am looking at (Sparcos) weigh 16 lbs each, and I figure that probably cuts 25 lbs off the OEM seats per side)
- wheels: ~60 lbs (the wheels themselves (16" SSR Competitions) should cut at least 2 lbs off the OEM steel wheels (14"); in addition the unsprung weight would be the equivalent of taking 56 lbs off the car; I rounded 64 down to 60)
- aluminum radiator (probably a Fluidyne, but possibly a Koyo, C&R, or PWR): ~10 lbs (this is probably the biggest guess of all these; I really don't know what the difference between the factory steel radiator is and an aluminum radiator)
- plastic fan (FAL): ~5 lbs (this is another guess, but I think that replacing both the stock metal (steel) shroud and fan, and replacing them with a plastic shroud and fan would easily drop 5 lbs; plus another cool thing is that the depth on this fan is only 1/2 that of the OEM fan, leaving more room in the engine bay for whatever you might need to put in there)
The grand total reduction would be in the neighborhood of 185 lbs. That is a really big chunk of weight and would reduce the Civics weight to below 2400 lbs. This loss alone would drop the power to weight ratio to 11.8. If you add to the turbo kit a camshaft and cat-back exhaust, it should be good for close to 220 hp, which would decrease the power to weight ratio to 10.9. For reference sake, that would tie or better the ratios for the NSX, the STi, the Dodge Ram SRT-10 Quad Cab (with the Viper engine), the 1995 RX-7; 350Z, 2004 (B6) S4, Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Mitsubishi Evolution RS, etc. Pretty impressive company for a four-door economy car.
A really great side effect of taking most of that weight off is that it should improve the weight distribution dramatically. Particularly, the flywheel, radiator, battery, carbon fiber hood, carbon fiber front fenders, and fan would all reduce the weight solely on the front axle, which would get the distribution closer to the 50/50 ideal, which in turn would improve handling.
Obviously this is all pie in the sky right now, but it is something that I am very interested in doing in the future.
- 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.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sportec SP700.
Sportec is a well-reputed Porsche tuner based in Germany. It also tunes Audis, with a notable example being the Sportec RS600--a 600hp version of the RS6. This Post, however, is about one of its craziest creations, the SP700. This is a modified Porsche 911 GT2 (remember my Display Name and the Post below?). As you probably guessed, the car makes 700hp (at 7100 rpms) and also 568 lb-ft of torque (at 4250 rpms). Factor in the stock GT2's curb weight of 3131, and you come up with a power to weight ratio of 4.5. That number, by the by, puts the SP700 6th place on my power to weight ratio list [behind the F50 GT (2.7), ME Four-Twelve (3.4), Autothority Stage IV Porsche 911 GT2 (4.2), Koenigsegg CCR (4.4), and tied with the almighty McClaren F1 (also 4.5)]. Now just think of ANY other road car you can imagine that I didn't just name, and the SP700 has a better power to weight ratio. ANY car. In case you were wondering what you do to a car that has 477 hp stock (2004 model) to increase that number by nearly 50%, you install a new ECU, new intercoolers, new turbos, titanium connecting rods (those little components might be the coolest mod in my opinion), new camshafts and more. The car has monster 19s (315/25 in the rear). Somehow the SP700 is able to defy the laws of physics and only slightly spins the tires when you rev it to 5k and drop the clutch. I still have a hard time believing that. Here are some performance numbers: 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds; 0-100 in less than 7 seconds [you'll recall this puts it AHEAD of all three of the "supercars" from my earlier Post]; and Sportec claims a top speed of 217, which sounds completely realistic to me. Sam Mitani (R&T) wrote about this car, "Around town, the SP was a delight. At less extreme speeds, it was as comfortable and easy to drive as a stock 911." This is why I love Porsches. This is why Porsches are my favorite cars. Would you want to "live" with a 700hp Viper SRT-10? Would you want to "live" with a 700+ hp Ferrari? I don't think I would. And yet, this SP700 is completely civil and livable even though it puts up numbers that literally only a handful of cars in the world can match. Porsche knows how to make great cars. Oh yeah, the price for this Teutonic torpedo? $275,000.
I posted two pictures of Sportec Porsches below.
The link to the article where most of this information was gleaned from is below (also has some additional pics):
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=856&page_number=1
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
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The M5.
Well, for those that know me well, you knew it was just a matter of time before I dedicated a Post to the incredible M5. It has long been either near or sometimes at the top of my dreamcar list--my cars that I would most like to own. The E39 M5 (2000-2003) was quite a performer. BMW squeezed 394 hp (6,600 rpms) and 368 lb-ft of torque (3,800 rpms) out of the 5.0 V-8 engine. With a curb weight of 4,024 lbs, the M5 had a power to weight ratio of 10.2, not bad for a big four-door sedan that you could comfortably road trip with three other adults in. Furthermore, if your pockets were deep enough, you could take your M5 to Steve Dinan and he could coax 471 horsepower out of it (for a power to weight ratio of 8.5). An aside here: the E39's M5 engine is rumored to be going into the next-generation M3, which should strike fear in the hearts of all S4 and C55 owners (not to mention all the Porsche drivers in the ALMS's GT class).
All things, however, must come to an end, and the E39 M5 did so at the end of the 2003 model year. With the new E60 5-series, BMW (and particularly head designer, Chris Bangle) have made a lot of BMW-faithful very angry with the new cars polarizing styling. I happen not to mind it that much. It definitely is not an evolution of the E39, but a completely new styling direction. Only time will tell what the long-term results of the styling changes are. But today (or very soon at least) we get to enjoy one of the most-potent four-doors on the road. In fact, this is the first 10 cylinder engine BMW has made for a street car, and it is the most powerful engine, BMW has every put into a street car. And what an engine it is. BMW likes to draw attention to the connection between the M5's engine and that of the Williams F1 BMW. Obviously the similarities end pretty much beyond the number of cylinders, but nonetheless it will give well-heeled owners something more to impress their friends with. The new engine is only 3 cubic inches larger than the E39's in displacement, remaining at 5.0 liters. With lightened internals, and an extra two cylinders, however, the V-10 makes 500 hp (7,750 rpms) and 384 lb-ft of torque (6,100 rpms). This engine is able to hit the mythical 100hp/liter ratio, a rarified place indeed. The redline, by the way, is at an astronomical 8,250 rpms. In fact, the engine will tolerate short runs all the way to 8,500 rpms during full-throttle upshifts. Yes, one could call this motor high-strung. If you remember from the "Three Supercars" Post below, that redline is higher than the Ferrari Enzo's and only 150 shy of the Porsche's. Pretty impressive company.
How about some numbers:
2005 BMW M5
5.0 liter V-10
compression ratio: 12.0:1
redline: 8,250 rpms
front-engine, rear-wheel drive
7-speed SMG transmission
curb weight: 4035 lbs
500 hp
384 lb-ft of torque
power to weight: 8.1
0-60 mph (BMW's claims): 4.6 seconds
0-125 mph (BMW's claims): 14.4 seconds
top speed: 155 mph (governed), but I hear it is good for close to 190
I can't wait until the press is able to do full performance tests on this car to see what kind of verified numbers it can put up. E55s and RS6s beware. The M5 is back.
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.
Friday, October 08, 2004
The Beast.
Well, ever since its introduction at the North American [Detroit] Auto Show this past January, the Chrysler ME412, has created quite a buzz among the automotive community. Could (would (should)) Chrysler build a car that would handily beat a $1 million Ferrari Enzo? Well, the answer to that question is still up in the air, but we are one step closer to the ME412 as a reality. This is evidenced by Chrysler building a running prototype/test mule and bringing it to Laguna Seca in order to allow a handful of car magazine writers an opportunity to drive this supercar around the track. Here are some of the numbers Chrysler is claiming:
6.0 liter quad(!!!)-turbo V12 (built by AMG)
Curb weight: 3100 lbs (but with a target/goal of around 2880 lbs)
Horsepower: 850
Torque: 850 lb.-ft
Power to weight ratio: 3.6 right now (but 3.4 if target weight is met)
7-speed dual (wet) clutch w/ paddle shifting
15 inch (!!!) Brembo carbon ceramic brakes
0-60: 2.92 seconds
0-100: 6.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 10.6 @ 136 mph
braking: in excess of negative 2.0 g's
Dan Knott, head of SRT performance operations for the Chrysler Group, claims that those numbers are conservative. That sounds a little difficult to believe, but let's remember the conservative numbers of the (Dodge) SRT-4. Just as a reminder, the Enzo, which had the best straightline performance numbers of the three below, got to 60 in 3.4, 100 in 7.0, and the 1/4 mile in 11.0 @ 133.9. Wow. I don't know that I have a lot more to say than "Wow". This Chrysler truly is The Beast. Also, Chrysler claims 925 pounds of downforce at 186 mph. This is just as much a racecar as the Enzo. And it's a freaking Chrysler! Unreal. Chrysler has not committed to putting the ME412 into production yet. It depends on the demand for the car.
Chrylser Group CEO Dieter Zetsche says that he will not build it if he can't make a profit on it (won' t build it just for brand recognition's sake). He says he wouldn't make more than 1000. And at that production value, the price would probably be around $250,000. However, if the demand was significantly less than that (say, less than 500) the price could be as high as $750,000 to make it profitable. Obviously the bottom line question is, whether someone that can afford a car in this price range, would be willing to shell out 3/4 of $1 million for a car that does NOT have a prancing horse, Porsche emblem, or the like on the front. That is a very difficult question. My friend, Nathan, and I have talked about it a number of times, and neither of us would have any problem with a Chrysler emblem on the front of our car while we were driving circles around the Enzos and the Carrera GTs (and anything else for that matter) on track days. Will Chrysler build The Beast? We can certainly hope so.
6.0 liter quad(!!!)-turbo V12 (built by AMG)
Curb weight: 3100 lbs (but with a target/goal of around 2880 lbs)
Horsepower: 850
Torque: 850 lb.-ft
Power to weight ratio: 3.6 right now (but 3.4 if target weight is met)
7-speed dual (wet) clutch w/ paddle shifting
15 inch (!!!) Brembo carbon ceramic brakes
0-60: 2.92 seconds
0-100: 6.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 10.6 @ 136 mph
braking: in excess of negative 2.0 g's
Dan Knott, head of SRT performance operations for the Chrysler Group, claims that those numbers are conservative. That sounds a little difficult to believe, but let's remember the conservative numbers of the (Dodge) SRT-4. Just as a reminder, the Enzo, which had the best straightline performance numbers of the three below, got to 60 in 3.4, 100 in 7.0, and the 1/4 mile in 11.0 @ 133.9. Wow. I don't know that I have a lot more to say than "Wow". This Chrysler truly is The Beast. Also, Chrysler claims 925 pounds of downforce at 186 mph. This is just as much a racecar as the Enzo. And it's a freaking Chrysler! Unreal. Chrysler has not committed to putting the ME412 into production yet. It depends on the demand for the car.
Chrylser Group CEO Dieter Zetsche says that he will not build it if he can't make a profit on it (won' t build it just for brand recognition's sake). He says he wouldn't make more than 1000. And at that production value, the price would probably be around $250,000. However, if the demand was significantly less than that (say, less than 500) the price could be as high as $750,000 to make it profitable. Obviously the bottom line question is, whether someone that can afford a car in this price range, would be willing to shell out 3/4 of $1 million for a car that does NOT have a prancing horse, Porsche emblem, or the like on the front. That is a very difficult question. My friend, Nathan, and I have talked about it a number of times, and neither of us would have any problem with a Chrysler emblem on the front of our car while we were driving circles around the Enzos and the Carrera GTs (and anything else for that matter) on track days. Will Chrysler build The Beast? We can certainly hope so.
I've seen a lot of things in my time...
...but I have never seen what I saw this morning on my way to school. I saw a Jaguar XKR convertible ($87k, 390 hp coupe) pulling a flatbed trailer down the road. Things that make you go, "hmmmm..."
Thursday, October 07, 2004
P.S. Bryan Herta's comments on the Carrera GT's engine.
"Absolutely the wildest stock engine I've ever driven."
Three supercars.
In the October issue of Motor Trend, the magazine tested three supercars at Ford's Arizona Proving Grounds track: the 2003 Ferrari Enzo, the 2005 Ford GT, and the 2004 Porsche Carrera GT, all of which have been mentioned in passing in earlier posts. I thought I would post what I think are some important numbers that the folks at MT came up with for these incredible machines.
Enzo:
Price: $652,830 (BUT, see previous Post below)
6.0 liter V-12
6-speed "F1" gearbox
Engine redline: 8200 rpms
Compression ratio: 11.2:1
Curb weight: 3254
Horsepower: 651 (7800 rpms)
Torque: 485 lb-ft (5500 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.0
Tires (f/r): 245/35 19 and 345/35 19
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.0 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.0 @ 133.9
top speed: 211.0
100-0 mph: 289 feet
60-0 mph: 106 feet
slalom: 71.0 mph
skidpad: 0.96 g
MT's figure eight: 24.5 seconds at 0.82 g
Ford GT:
Price: $157,095
5.4 liter supercharged V-8
6-speed manual
Redline: 6500
Compression ratio: 8.4:1
Curb weight: 3468
Horsepower: 550 (6500 rpms)
Torque: 500 (3750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 6.3
Tires (f/r): 235/45 18 and 315/40 19
0-60 mph: 3.7 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.4 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.2 @ 131.2
top speed: 200 mph
100-0 mph: 301 feet
60-0 mph: 110 feet
slalom: 71.8 mph
skidpad: 0.91 g
MT's figure eight: 25.2 seconds at 0.77 g
Carrera GT:
Price: $448,300
5.7 liter V-10
6-speed manual
Redline: 8400 rpms
Compression ratio: 12.0:1
Curb weight: 3258 lbs
Horsepower: 605 (8000 rpms)
Torque: 435 (5750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.4
Tires (f/r): 265/35 19 and 335/30 20
0-60 mph: 3.6 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.3 seconds
0-100-0: 11.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.1 @ 133.4
top speed: 201 mph
100-0 mph: 277 feet
60-0 mph: 101 feet
slalom: 73.2 mph
skidpad: 0.99 g
MT's figure eight: 23.8 seconds @ 0.86 mph
A couple notes: First, Motor Trend got Bryan Herta (IRL) to do the driving for them, so there can be no questions as to lack of driver skill and/or error; Second, Herta reported that he left a little top end out on the track for the Ford and quite a bit for the Porsche, but just ran out of room. The first thought that springs to mind looking at these numbers is the incredible (relative) bargain the Ford is. Yes, it gets beat by the other two, but it runs with them in all performance aspects...at 1/4 and 1/3 the price. Pretty impressive. An aside: I saw THREE Ford GTs driving westbound on I-94 in Michigan this past July (around milemarker 165, if memory serves), together in a convoy. That is one of the things that I loved about living in Michigan; I would often see cars that no one else in the world (or at least very few) had ever seen, being so close to Detroit. Those three Fords might be the most impressive automotive sight that I have seen (or ever will see) in real life. That leaves the Porsche and the Ferrari. What I am about to write reflects an ongoing argument/disagreement that my good friend, Nathan, and I have. He is a Ferrari guy, and I am a Porsche guy. Yes, the Enzo beats the Carrera GT to 60 mph, 100 mph, and the quarter mile by 0.2 seconds, 0.3 seconds, and 0.1 seconds respectively. The Ferrari's trap speed is 0.1 mph higher than the Porsche's. Oh yeah, and it has a 10 mph top speed advantage (possibly lessened or negated with a longer straight). To me, these numbers are a wash. In my opinion, what is really telling are the handling and braking numbers. The Porsche ran through the 600 ft. slalom 2.2 mph faster than the Enzo. Further, Herta reported that the Enzo was much more difficult to run through the course because the rear end was so twitchy and difficult to catch (this is coming from a professional, open-wheel race car driver). The Carrera GT pulls an extra 0.03 g on the skidpad. Perhaps even more importantly are the braking numbers: the Porsche bettering the Ferrari by 5 feet from 60 mph and 12 feet from 100 mph. The bottom line of these numbers is reflected in MT's figure eight performance numbers. The Porsche completed it 0.7 seconds quicker, translating to a 0.04 g advantage. Granted, you could argue that these numbers are a wash as well, but I really believe that if you took both cars to a track (road course) and ran them around that the Carrera GT would consistently put up better lap times than the Enzo due to its superior braking, better handling, and increased predictability at 10/10ths. I just hope that we're able to see those numbers again sometime. An aside here, I think that my hypothesis just stated is backed up by news from Germany that two weeks ago the Carrera GT posted the fastest time ever recorded around the 174 turn (!!!), 14.0 mile North Loop circuit at Nurburgring, generally believed to be the most difficult race track in the world. The car AVERAGED over 101 mph over the entire race track, setting the record of 7 minutes, 32.44 seconds. I don't know whether the Enzo has been tested there or not (Ferrari usually tests at Monza or Fiorano). But it would certainly be nice to see how these cars match up on the race track.
Enzo:
Price: $652,830 (BUT, see previous Post below)
6.0 liter V-12
6-speed "F1" gearbox
Engine redline: 8200 rpms
Compression ratio: 11.2:1
Curb weight: 3254
Horsepower: 651 (7800 rpms)
Torque: 485 lb-ft (5500 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.0
Tires (f/r): 245/35 19 and 345/35 19
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.0 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.0 @ 133.9
top speed: 211.0
100-0 mph: 289 feet
60-0 mph: 106 feet
slalom: 71.0 mph
skidpad: 0.96 g
MT's figure eight: 24.5 seconds at 0.82 g
Ford GT:
Price: $157,095
5.4 liter supercharged V-8
6-speed manual
Redline: 6500
Compression ratio: 8.4:1
Curb weight: 3468
Horsepower: 550 (6500 rpms)
Torque: 500 (3750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 6.3
Tires (f/r): 235/45 18 and 315/40 19
0-60 mph: 3.7 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.4 seconds
0-100-0 mph: 11.7 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.2 @ 131.2
top speed: 200 mph
100-0 mph: 301 feet
60-0 mph: 110 feet
slalom: 71.8 mph
skidpad: 0.91 g
MT's figure eight: 25.2 seconds at 0.77 g
Carrera GT:
Price: $448,300
5.7 liter V-10
6-speed manual
Redline: 8400 rpms
Compression ratio: 12.0:1
Curb weight: 3258 lbs
Horsepower: 605 (8000 rpms)
Torque: 435 (5750 rpms)
Power to weight ratio: 5.4
Tires (f/r): 265/35 19 and 335/30 20
0-60 mph: 3.6 seconds
0-100 mph: 7.3 seconds
0-100-0: 11.3 seconds
1/4 mile: 11.1 @ 133.4
top speed: 201 mph
100-0 mph: 277 feet
60-0 mph: 101 feet
slalom: 73.2 mph
skidpad: 0.99 g
MT's figure eight: 23.8 seconds @ 0.86 mph
A couple notes: First, Motor Trend got Bryan Herta (IRL) to do the driving for them, so there can be no questions as to lack of driver skill and/or error; Second, Herta reported that he left a little top end out on the track for the Ford and quite a bit for the Porsche, but just ran out of room. The first thought that springs to mind looking at these numbers is the incredible (relative) bargain the Ford is. Yes, it gets beat by the other two, but it runs with them in all performance aspects...at 1/4 and 1/3 the price. Pretty impressive. An aside: I saw THREE Ford GTs driving westbound on I-94 in Michigan this past July (around milemarker 165, if memory serves), together in a convoy. That is one of the things that I loved about living in Michigan; I would often see cars that no one else in the world (or at least very few) had ever seen, being so close to Detroit. Those three Fords might be the most impressive automotive sight that I have seen (or ever will see) in real life. That leaves the Porsche and the Ferrari. What I am about to write reflects an ongoing argument/disagreement that my good friend, Nathan, and I have. He is a Ferrari guy, and I am a Porsche guy. Yes, the Enzo beats the Carrera GT to 60 mph, 100 mph, and the quarter mile by 0.2 seconds, 0.3 seconds, and 0.1 seconds respectively. The Ferrari's trap speed is 0.1 mph higher than the Porsche's. Oh yeah, and it has a 10 mph top speed advantage (possibly lessened or negated with a longer straight). To me, these numbers are a wash. In my opinion, what is really telling are the handling and braking numbers. The Porsche ran through the 600 ft. slalom 2.2 mph faster than the Enzo. Further, Herta reported that the Enzo was much more difficult to run through the course because the rear end was so twitchy and difficult to catch (this is coming from a professional, open-wheel race car driver). The Carrera GT pulls an extra 0.03 g on the skidpad. Perhaps even more importantly are the braking numbers: the Porsche bettering the Ferrari by 5 feet from 60 mph and 12 feet from 100 mph. The bottom line of these numbers is reflected in MT's figure eight performance numbers. The Porsche completed it 0.7 seconds quicker, translating to a 0.04 g advantage. Granted, you could argue that these numbers are a wash as well, but I really believe that if you took both cars to a track (road course) and ran them around that the Carrera GT would consistently put up better lap times than the Enzo due to its superior braking, better handling, and increased predictability at 10/10ths. I just hope that we're able to see those numbers again sometime. An aside here, I think that my hypothesis just stated is backed up by news from Germany that two weeks ago the Carrera GT posted the fastest time ever recorded around the 174 turn (!!!), 14.0 mile North Loop circuit at Nurburgring, generally believed to be the most difficult race track in the world. The car AVERAGED over 101 mph over the entire race track, setting the record of 7 minutes, 32.44 seconds. I don't know whether the Enzo has been tested there or not (Ferrari usually tests at Monza or Fiorano). But it would certainly be nice to see how these cars match up on the race track.
What exactly IS the Enzo's price?
In a previous Post (see "My 'Display Name' explanation"), I made a claim as to the price of the new Ferrari Enzo. I have an update and correction to make for that. My memory was close to accurate, as I remembered $600,000. The actual MSRP (including destination and handling) is $652,830. However, and this is a a really big HOWEVER, in this week's Autoweek magazine, there is an Enzo for sale in the classifieds. Asking price: $1.1 million. Obviously people are charging (and apparently paying) for the exclusivity of the car and not the performance.
Jeremy's wedding (look Mother and Shelle, a non-car Post!! :) )
I went to Portland, Oregon, two weeks ago to attend one of my best friend, Jeremy's wedding. It was really a great time. I was able to stay with my very good friend Ryan and his wife Julie in their house in Vancouver. It was really great to see them, and be able to spend time with them. Unfortunately I am unable to do so as much as I would like due to being in North Carolina. Speaking of the Northwest, when I flew into Seattle, there was about a half-moon out, on a clear night, and you could see the silhouette of Mt. Rainier in the sky. It was truly incredible. I really miss the Northwest. The wedding was great. It was in a great little church in downtown Portland. Elisa looked radiant. Jeremy was as handsome as ever. Seeing and talking with friends and family was really nice and a refreshing break from school. Finally, and most importantly, I got to see my dear fiancee', Shelle. Time with her has seemed awfully rare as of late (understandedly, I suppose), and therefore all the more precious. I really enjoyed spending the weekend with her and am glad that I could share such a special occasion with her and my friends and family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
