Cars, cars, cars...
Comments
-
I had a Mk I Escort for a (short) while when I were a yoof. Not a Mexico though. Think it was an 1100cc rustbucket, last bit is a definite.0
-
I was the unfortunate owner of one of these until it "got written off" in a country lane.orraloon said:I had a Mk I Escort for a (short) while when I were a yoof. Not a Mexico though. Think it was an 1100cc rustbucket, last bit is a definite.
0 -
I doubt that.pblakeney said:
I knew of guys who fitted V8s into those, sorted the gearing, brakes and suspension fine tuned on the track, then blew off the rich boys in their Porches on the local roads.
It's just like the cycling fable:
I flew passed this guy on his Pinarello Dogma and Rapha kit on my 3 speed Puch 'Pacemaker'.
Maybe one of them passed a Porsche one evening and the story grew.
A MK1 Escort with the then Rover V8 (approx. 340hp) would be very quick.
However, the Ford Pinto engine is iro 125kg's with alternator etc and the type 9 box (39kg's) the Rover V8, 230 kg's + a 50kg gearbox (LT77, without clutch), so I don't know how the balance of the car (with the heavier Rover gearbox and rear diff.) was reconciled. The Rover V8 did funny things above 4000 rpm as it was a push rod engine ('under valved' was the common term used to describe it) whereas the then 911 (964) had a rev limit of 6700rpm, the 928s 6800rpm, the 944 turbo roughly the same and a n/a 944, 7000.
It's quite possible the Porsche owners were less inclined to put the pedal to the metal and risk bending their precious cars.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
That's the rub. When city slickers in their weekend cars meet locals who actually race and know the roads. Went on for a few years. This was no one off.pinno said:
It's quite possible the Porsche owners were less inclined to put the pedal to the metal and risk bending their precious cars.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Those yuppies of the 80's? I remember fitting desks and computers at Laing & Cruickshank in the city (at weekends) and the plethora of Porkers was unbelievable.pblakeney said:
That's the rub. When city slickers in their weekend cars meet locals who actually race and know the roads. Went on for a few years. This was no one off.pinno said:
It's quite possible the Porsche owners were less inclined to put the pedal to the metal and risk bending their precious cars.
I bet they couldn't drive for toffee.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Yeah, missed that bit out. Early to mid 80s. I left in '87 then so don't know how long it continued. I knew if I saw one in my mirror just to let it go.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The 911 has such wide arches at the rear, from any front 3/4 views the longish rear overhang is completely hidden. You really don’t see a ‘lump’ at the back at all. From the rear you get a wide stance and narrow cabin, and the quite vertical windscreen accentuates the length of the front fenders. For me (as a designer) it’s a very very lovely proportion.First.Aspect said:
I get that you like the 911, but the engine is fundamentally in the wrong place. This unbalances the styling. It is also not a sensible engineering solution in terms of performance. Part of the visual appeal of a car is whether or not it is a good engineering design, so a mid-engined car wins on that count every time if it is a performance car.pinno said:
If you're going to taunt me, at least get it right.First.Aspect said:Or if you insist on having a rear engined cars with shitty air cooled engines, a Carmen Ghia.
Karmann.
Mine's water cooled thank you.
The last air cooled 911 was the 993 produced after the 964 from 93(?) to 98(?). All editions since are water cooled.
Flat 6 Boxster engines: sh1.t off a shovel.
What?! Horrible thing. Ford won Le man in it and then gave up their interest (won with privateers after that). A fleeting moment in motorsport history where they chucked millions of US dollars at it and put a huge low revving lump in it. Because all Ford wanted to do was beat Ferrari.First.Aspect said:The original GT40 had a pleasing functional aesthetic.
Crush the lot of them.
Having the engine at the rear is superb for performance however it takes a lot higher driver skill to make use of it - that’s why the majority of manufacturers stick with mid engined as they are ‘easy to drive’ and is more accessible for their customers. Mid engined cars are actually a challenge to package so from that perspective I wouldn’t call it a great engineering solution. Unless you are making a high end supercar where all practicalities go out the window and you can lift off huge rear clamshells, it brings many more challenges to engineer and design a more everyday mid engined car - Mclaren’s, Ferraris etc. where you are fighting for every nook and cranny of space as practicality and luxury creeps in. Don’t get me wrong, I think mid engined cars naturally allow for a great visual balance, but a mid engined platform doesn’t automatically mean your car will be beautiful.
And finally - Alpines were pretty successful in racing. As far as I know, they were rear engined.0 -
i'd say its quite likely - quick drivers in quick cars on local roads they know vs bloke who thinks he is da man in a Porsche he bought to satisfy his own ego and can't drive it properly.pinno said:
I doubt that.pblakeney said:
I knew of guys who fitted V8s into those, sorted the gearing, brakes and suspension fine tuned on the track, then blew off the rich boys in their Porches on the local roads.
It's just like the cycling fable:
I flew passed this guy on his Pinarello Dogma and Rapha kit on my 3 speed Puch 'Pacemaker'.
Maybe one of them passed a Porsche one evening and the story grew.
A MK1 Escort with the then Rover V8 (approx. 340hp) would be very quick.
However, the Ford Pinto engine is iro 125kg's with alternator etc and the type 9 box (39kg's) the Rover V8, 230 kg's + a 50kg gearbox (LT77, without clutch), so I don't know how the balance of the car (with the heavier Rover gearbox and rear diff.) was reconciled. The Rover V8 did funny things above 4000 rpm as it was a push rod engine ('under valved' was the common term used to describe it) whereas the then 911 (964) had a rev limit of 6700rpm, the 928s 6800rpm, the 944 turbo roughly the same and a n/a 944, 7000.
It's quite possible the Porsche owners were less inclined to put the pedal to the metal and risk bending their precious cars.
I'm not a trackie but I'm blue lights, high speed and adv trained so can get a car shifting if needs be, so I'll take on most things in the Anaconda or, rather unsportingly, the M4.
Remember, its not what you drive, its how you drive it..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Aesthetics are entirely subjective. Doesn't matter if you are a designer or not. 911's aren't ugly as such, they are just a long way down the list of beautiful automotive designs. To my eye, and lots of others.wavefront said:
The 911 has such wide arches at the rear, from any front 3/4 views the longish rear overhang is completely hidden. You really don’t see a ‘lump’ at the back at all. From the rear you get a wide stance and narrow cabin, and the quite vertical windscreen accentuates the length of the front fenders. For me (as a designer) it’s a very very lovely proportion.First.Aspect said:
I get that you like the 911, but the engine is fundamentally in the wrong place. This unbalances the styling. It is also not a sensible engineering solution in terms of performance. Part of the visual appeal of a car is whether or not it is a good engineering design, so a mid-engined car wins on that count every time if it is a performance car.pinno said:
If you're going to taunt me, at least get it right.First.Aspect said:Or if you insist on having a rear engined cars with shitty air cooled engines, a Carmen Ghia.
Karmann.
Mine's water cooled thank you.
The last air cooled 911 was the 993 produced after the 964 from 93(?) to 98(?). All editions since are water cooled.
Flat 6 Boxster engines: sh1.t off a shovel.
What?! Horrible thing. Ford won Le man in it and then gave up their interest (won with privateers after that). A fleeting moment in motorsport history where they chucked millions of US dollars at it and put a huge low revving lump in it. Because all Ford wanted to do was beat Ferrari.First.Aspect said:The original GT40 had a pleasing functional aesthetic.
Crush the lot of them.
Having the engine at the rear is superb for performance however it takes a lot higher driver skill to make use of it - that’s why the majority of manufacturers stick with mid engined as they are ‘easy to drive’ and is more accessible for their customers. Mid engined cars are actually a challenge to package so from that perspective I wouldn’t call it a great engineering solution. Unless you are making a high end supercar where all practicalities go out the window and you can lift off huge rear clamshells, it brings many more challenges to engineer and design a more everyday mid engined car - Mclaren’s, Ferraris etc. where you are fighting for every nook and cranny of space as practicality and luxury creeps in. Don’t get me wrong, I think mid engined cars naturally allow for a great visual balance, but a mid engined platform doesn’t automatically mean your car will be beautiful.
And finally - Alpines were pretty successful in racing. As far as I know, they were rear engined.
From an aesthetic standpoint, who gives a shit about rear visibility and rear seat legroom? Deep down we all want a car stored under a dust cover in a vast barn on the country estate, to be brought out on sunny days and driven in such a way as to render knowledge of anything behind utterly irrelevant.
The "packaging" argument above doesn't make sense to me, when your car still has a bonnet ahead of the cabin. You are effectively arguing to move the engine from the largest unused volume in the vehicle to behind the driver, to improve balance - at the cost of cabin space and storage space. Then you move it further back again to ruin the balance in order to make room for rear seat passengers, while still taking up all the storage space? But if you want room for passengers and storage, put the engine in the front...
It is clearly remarkable how Porsche have compensated for the original handling issues over time, and if someone really twisted my arm I would probably accept the gift of a 911, but you can't escape that the starting point for the 911 is sub-optimal.0 -
FTFYFirst.Aspect said:
From an aesthetic standpoint, who gives a censored about rear visibility and rear seat legroom? Deep down we all want a car that you can drive on a daily basis and driven in such a way as to render knowledge of anything behind utterly irrelevant.
I presume in this instance that you are talking about the balance of the design?First.Aspect said:The "packaging" argument above doesn't make sense to me, when your car still has a bonnet ahead of the cabin. You are effectively arguing to move the engine from the largest unused volume in the vehicle to behind the driver, to improve balance - at the cost of cabin space and storage space. Then you move it further back again to ruin the balance in order to make room for rear seat passengers, while still taking up all the storage space? But if you want room for passengers and storage, put the engine in the front...
The original Porsche - air cooled, rear engine did not have a lot of power, so the idea that performance was compromised is quite wrong. They sold like hot cakes and when sales subsided after the oil crisis in the early 70's, and decided on the 924/928 venture, there was a move within Porsche to scrap the 911.First.Aspect said:It is clearly remarkable how Porsche have compensated for the original handling issues over time, and if someone really twisted my arm I would probably accept the gift of a 911, but you can't escape that the starting point for the 911 is sub-optimal.
I am not going to argue about the aesthetics as that is entirely subjective but you cannot say that basically they have compensated the inherent balance/handling. We've discussed this, it handles brilliantly. The handling characteristics are not 'compromised' by the the drive configuration. I would say they have been enhanced.
It only went wrong with the 964 turbo but that was over powered and generally driven by idiots. In the right hands it was super quick.
Since then, the 911 was produced in the following forms; 993, 996, 997 gen 1, 997 gen2. 991, 992, so it's been nearly 30 years since they stopped producing the 'widow maker' and there is little doubt about it's cornering ability and speed at a cost way below it's competitors.
I have driven lots of cars from Skyline's to a Gartrak v6 Escort to an AMG 500 Merc to a 735i BMW. To name a few:
The Skyline (R33) was lovely. Lovely balance - way over tuned and I elected not to buy it as it was champing at the bit all the time It had a roll cage which I would have to remove to make it practical... In standard, unmodified form, I may have bought it. They are now fetching silly money.
The Gartrak Escort frightened the beejesus out of me. It seemed far too quick for the chassis.
The AMG Merc felt heavy - quick and quiet. I mean you could be over the speed limit on the motorway and you thought you were doing 50 and it just cruised but didn't actually feel very sporty. Just a fast, comfortable motorway cruiser. Sublime ride quality.
The BMW was fast. Traction control, LSD, sports suspension - all the refinements to basically make what is a big car with inherent handling issues due to it's size driveable. Again, smooth as silk, what a lovely engine. Never felt like a big car to drive.
None of the above or anything I have driven (that I could afford) matches the 911 or flicked my switch in the same way. Ideally, I would have bought a manual but I wanted a practical daily. And this is what it does so well as a modern sports car - it's a Lamb at normal speeds with all sport functions switched off. An old granny could drive it. It doesn't champ at the bit, it doesn't constantly tempt you to hit the throttle. It will cruise effortlessly on the motorway. The ride quality lets you know you are in a car and not on a sofa. (In sports suspension mode, say goodbye to your kidneys). The blind spot is tiny, the cabin is intimate without being claustrophobic. There's enough space for all 4 of us. The feedback from the steering wheel whether you are flooring it or gently pootling along is unsurpassed. You know exactly what the car is doing - it won't suddenly snap on you (Honda 2000?), the back end is not trying to play catch up, you can start applying power way before you start turning in - that's an art as it's counter intuitive but breath taking.
It has this very accessible split personality - fast for the track and perfectly liveable for every day use without either personality being compromised. You can sit at 50mph and it feels good. It's lively and you are at one with it; there's no hidden personality issues waiting to jump out on you unexpectedly. The cornering ability is sublime - apply throttle, turn, keep applying more throttle, come out the other side like the thing is on rails.
If you got in one and drove it, I could bet your bottom dollar that your opinion of the aesthetics would disappear into dust and no car has put a smile on my face like the 911 does.
I metaphorically slap myself every time I get in it.
I'm off to jump on the rollers. I expect you may have read this by the time I have finished.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
To long to read, sorry.
Out of interest what's the weight distribution in a 911?0 -
Oh it was just Pinno going on about no 911 ever has the grace, beauty, elegance or joy of a DS, with or with TDLW in it..
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Can't be bothered. Google it.First.Aspect said:To long to read, sorry.
Out of interest what's the weight distribution in a 911?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
40:60, according to some Porsche fanboy websites.pinno said:
Can't be bothered. Google it.First.Aspect said:To long to read, sorry.
Out of interest what's the weight distribution in a 911?
Unless you are hobbits, there's not room for 4 people in a 911, at least not without a physiotherapy support vehicle.
My 440 has 49:51 weight distribution, 4 doors and a huuuge boot where the engine should be. I really don't see the point of a "practical" sports car like a 911. Its always going to be impractical per se, so why compromise at all?0 -
Tesla Inc's ability to design components in-house gave the automaker agility in making tweaks to parts and coping with supply chain issues that hit other automakers much harder, sources and experts said.
Tesla boosted its deliveries by 87% to a record high in 2021, pushing up its shares up over 13% on Monday.
Here are some of the ways Tesla navigated supply chain challenges.
HOW TESLA COPED WITH THE GLOBAL CHIP SHORTAGE
Tesla told some customers they could take vehicle delivery with some missing parts, such as Bluetooth chips and USB ports. Tesla also removed some features such as radar sensors and lumbar support for front passenger seats, which made the car less complicated to build. Tesla did not respond to Reuters' request for comments.
Tesla also increased vehicle prices to address higher costs, including "expedite costs" for parts. American consumers have to wait for seven months if they order a Model Y version, whose prices went up 18% last year.
Tesla chief executive Elon Musk said Tesla was also able to substitute alternative chips for some that were in short supply. Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) CEO Herbert Diess said Tesla's ability to rewrite software to support the new chips in 2-3 weeks was impressive.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/how-tesla-weathered-global-supply-chain-issues-that-knocked-rivals-2022-01-04/
0 -
What happened to the yawning emoji?0
-
Pross said:
What happened to the yawning emoji?
🥱
0 -
Given their valuation is well over Toyota, they should be expected to pull off impressive feats...
Unless that valuation is balls?0 -
😴Pross said:What happened to the yawning emoji?
I've gone past yawning. Mind you, I did start this thread to avoid boring talk about cars... so I probably shouldn't complain.0 -
It isn't like you've clicked on a thread about Coronavirus and found a discussion about financial instruments, is it?briantrumpet said:
😴Pross said:What happened to the yawning emoji?
I've gone past yawning. Mind you, I did start this thread to avoid boring talk about cars... so I probably shouldn't complain.1 -
I thought it was fascinating car news about how they managed to avoid the chip shortages.
I won't keep you all informed of the latest interesting Elon Musk company news if you be like that.0 -
:-p0
-
2 adults, 2 children.First.Aspect said:
Unless you are hobbits, there's not room for 4 people in a 911, at least not without a physiotherapy support vehicle.
Then you don't want a sports car 'cos none of them are 'practical'. Mine is a daily. We go on holiday in my Fraud Transit vaaaan.First.Aspect said:My 440 has 49:51 weight distribution, 4 doors and a huuuge boot where the engine should be. I really don't see the point of a "practical" sports car like a 911. Its always going to be impractical per se, so why compromise at all?
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Want, can't have. No space for 3 cars, need a car I can rack a 25 ft boat, oars and put a rigger in the back of.pinno said:
2 adults, 2 children.First.Aspect said:
Unless you are hobbits, there's not room for 4 people in a 911, at least not without a physiotherapy support vehicle.
Then you don't want a sports car 'cos none of them are 'practical'. Mine is a daily. We go on holiday in my Fraud Transit vaaaan.First.Aspect said:My 440 has 49:51 weight distribution, 4 doors and a huuuge boot where the engine should be. I really don't see the point of a "practical" sports car like a 911. Its always going to be impractical per se, so why compromise at all?
Otherwise I might have something like an F type. That's about my budget limit.0 -
Or a Cayman,.just to wind you up. 45:55 weight distribution, according to Porschefanboy.com.First.Aspect said:
Want, can't have. No space for 3 cars, need a car I can rack a 25 ft boat, oars and put a rigger in the back of.pinno said:
2 adults, 2 children.First.Aspect said:
Unless you are hobbits, there's not room for 4 people in a 911, at least not without a physiotherapy support vehicle.
Then you don't want a sports car 'cos none of them are 'practical'. Mine is a daily. We go on holiday in my Fraud Transit vaaaan.First.Aspect said:My 440 has 49:51 weight distribution, 4 doors and a huuuge boot where the engine should be. I really don't see the point of a "practical" sports car like a 911. Its always going to be impractical per se, so why compromise at all?
Otherwise I might have something like an F type. That's about my budget limit.0 -
I prefer practical supercars."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
My dad used to judge the suitability of a vehicle by how many 8x4 sheets of ply he could fit inside. He never bought many sheets, but we used to own a lot of different vans. VW split window bus was the best.0
-
I would mention a certain electrical vehicle with a good charging infrastructure, but I won't because people on here are rather nasty and rather impolite.Stevo_666 said:I prefer practical supercars.
0
