Yes but a Lamborghini should be able to blow the doors off of any production Nissan in any measure; 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 Mile, Top Speed, etc.
Novice
Yes but a Lamborghini should be able to blow the doors off of any production Nissan in any measure; 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 Mile, Top Speed, etc.
Enthusiast
Why?
Its Lamborghini, when you are driving you really don't care what the times are to a tenth, as you are not in a spot to reproduce them anyway, and that is totally ignoring that the average Lamborghini V12 driver just doesn't care.
Chief of Secret Police and CFO - Brotherhood of Jelly
No Mr. Craig, I expect you to die! On the inside. Of heartbreak. You emo bitch
Fanatic
I was just considering finding snow on the road, not really going off road of course. and I think the locking differentials have an issue about their dimensions, preventing the car to be both having a small ground clearance and a quite compact rear part, already overcrowded considering performance car are usually mid enginedOriginally Posted by wwgkd
therefore, since the 959 was meant exactly to do both going fast and being drivable every day, I can't see the problem.
even more, how can you say it doesn't give you the supposed ultimate drive?
how can you define precisely and indisputably the ultimate drive, apart from personal opinion?
and finally, how can you know what the car was designed for without being behind those who actually designed it?
rarely projects like these go wrong, usually we don't like them, but it's a whole different thing.
Porsche wanted the 959 to be like it is, and Ferrari wanted the F40 to be like this. you like the F40, fine.
but don't say the 959 is wrong.
sure about that?
you considered the SLR.
I don't care how you call it, a supercar, a GT or whatelse, but it's very fast on the track, comfortable, and easy to use every day, almost as a standard SL.
I know the car is heavy, has the automatic gearbox and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that the car is capable to do mroe than just one thing and even in a excellent way after all.
Consider the McLaren F1. besides being an extreme design, it's kinda usable, the driving position is very good, the comfort on board is more than acceptable, it has as boot as an old Fiesta and thanks to the door is even easy to park. I would suggest you to have a look to the test drive of Tiff Niedel.
how can you enjoy a long drive, a long ultimate drive, if the car isn't comfortable enough?
I think that if I had an F40 I would really like to go to Le Mans driving it, but it's quite far from my place. I can still do that because I'm an enthusiast and I would accept all the uncomfortable situations.
But I would really enjoy to do the very same trip in a more comfortable still fast car, like the Carrera GT, a Zonda or something else.
It would make the trip easier, less stressing, and perhaps even allowing me to focus more on driving and not preventing the car from killing me at the first distraction.
stop being such a close minded extremist person.
you don't seem to know what balance is, in the whole sense of the world.
stop considering cars just from their figures or what you read on magazines, think about the whole project and how many other factors it involves.
sine when the F40 is a balance? seriously.
it's one of the extremest cars you can have.
you call balance when cold air can enter the cockpit trough the plexiglas side windows small opens?
or when you can see the glue used between the different carbon fiber parts?
or when the brakes don't work very well if cold, which means on everyday road, also starting being unbelievably noisy?
those are not my opinions, but those of an owner.
He loves his car, but knows it's something very difficult to appreciate because it's difficult to find a situation when you can actually enjoy it.
he knew that when he bought the car, so he wasn't actually complaining, but just saying the car isn't something easily enjoyable, even if that perhaps gives the car even more value.
I would like to know what 60valves think about, if he still posts.
again, in the same way you cannot technically and scientifically define the difference between supercars and sportcars (they are just two names we created, they actually don't mean something), you can't define what the ultimate drive is, let alone using it to define the differences between the two cars.
Seriously, try to give the objective definition of ultimate drive, without being selfish, contradictory, or even just stupid.
whatever definition you could give me, I could argue that, because they are both personal opinions.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Novice
The ultimate drive: A drive where its you and the car without any nonsense in between.
The communication between you and the car is unfiltered, unadulterated, uninterrupted by everyday technology.
You are (qoute Andrew Frankel)"deafened, frightened, and thrilled beyond description".
That's what the ultimate drive is.
And the ultimate drive can't be found anywhere except through a supercar.
A supercar: a car you get into just to drive.
Since all you want to do in a supercar is drive; everyday luxuries become point-less and just add weight.
You proved exactly what I said. The SLR can do many things, but the one thing that matters, it can't do. And that's drive like no other.
Fact is we have cars that do shopping better than supercars, we have cars that are more comfortable than supercars, we even have cars that go faster than supercars.
So then what's the point of building supercars?
For a drive like no other.
But anyways lets hear it from you; What makes a supercar, a supercar?
Last edited by Newyorkkopter; 01-04-2009 at 06:57 AM.
Fanatic
I could answer: who is it?
who cares what he said?
why I should definitely agree?
I could say that the ultimate drive is when I take a long trip, drive for hours, being just interested in driving, and the moment I will arrive at my destination, the destination itself wouldn't matter, being just a poit between the trip I just ended and the next one.
most of all, I should feel happy, or even more, in equilibrium with the car and the environment around me
can you argue this?
no, because it's a personal opinion
I can respect what you or Mr Frankel said, but not if you pretend those ideas to be the right and indisputable ones.
you don't seem to understand that.
I don't even know if I want to continue this with you.
you don't seem to listen.
I could give you whatever definition of sueprcar, sportcar, suv, everything, and it would always be a personal idea.
you are saying the SLR is wrong because it can't do something you pointed out as the most important thing.
besides being arguable, it's also based just on your personal opinion, tastes and ideas.
is that so difficult to admit?
what's the problem of saying you prefer an F40 because you prefer cars without a lot of options and equipments complicating them?
Even by that, I could say that a turbo is something that deviate you from the direct enjoyment of the car since you have to deal with a filter, being it the turbo lag, or even the simple fact that the throttle's response has to deal not only with the revs but also with the turbo's pressure (not exactly the same thing).
as an example, give me the definition of hatchback?
if you are considering cars like the Astra or the Golf/GTI, you should consider that even the new Opel/Vauxhall Vectra (or BUick Regal) is a hatchback according to GM.
so what is a supercar?
I don't care, it's just a name some marketing guy or journalist invented just to increase the thrilling of reading an article or press release.
what really matters, to me?
- the pleasure of driving, as an enthusiast.
- the efficiency for the car, as a hopefully future automotive engineer.
- the sense of the car, being completely against marketing BSs.
- the need for the car and it's place on the market, since certain cars can create a bad image in the mind of the public opinion creating a new wave of car-haters (the same who gave us days when the circulation is not allowed, but that don't care or take a look at the pollution caused, for example, by house warming).
the first is something pretty personal, so I'm not asking you to accept it and consider it as the definition of something.
most of all, I can achieve such pleasure in so many ways, the kind of car I'm driving isn't even relevant in first place.
I found myself smiling while driving an old Nissan Micra 1.3 on a country side road, as a reference, or driving reckless on a parking lot covered with snow in a first gen Toyota Yaris 1.0
the second is something technically defined, and even if it's not something that can surelly improve the quality of the driving, it can allow us to have cars strictly designed for being just a commuter, polluting less the environment while just going to job, creating a space for less efficient car but, perhaps, more intriguing, when we want just to enjoy the ride without a precise aim or destination, say during the weekend.
the third is to prevent us from having more badly designed cars demanded just by an ignorant mass of buyers who don't know anything about what a car actually is and what means to design one.
forth, is basically the same, just from a different point of view.
it's the requirement for which every new car should add something to the market and not just being a different version from another brand of something already existing.
it doesn't mean no one can build a full size sedan after say Ford introduced one, but they should offer something that can move a step forward the idea of full size sedan, something more than some more options as standard, or more hp and higher mileage.
it's about innovation, according to the third sentence though, no stupid and senseless products just for the sake of being different.
those are just the way I judge every new car, being it a micro car (something easy to define as a very small car (no matter of its performance though)) or the latest car from Maranello.
being the way I judge the cars the market offers, it's fine if you disagree.
what I'm arguing about your posts is that you pretend (if at the beginning I was considering a misunderstanding, now I'm sure you are doing that purposedly) what you write to be right, objectively.
just say, "that's my opinion" or "what I would like to find in a car is", "in my opinion any car that provide me the ultimate driving, which in my opinion is..., is a supercar", so to not look like a kid, repeatedly.
Last edited by LeonOfTheDead; 01-04-2009 at 07:57 AM.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Furniture
Or a stripped out, basic supermini.
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
Fanatic
this (even if a Panda 100HP is not basic, still plenty of fun)
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Enthusiast
The ultimate drive: a drive where you are in a hearse. In a coffin.
Fanatic
So...a Porsche 911?
I'm dropping out to create a company that starts with motorcycles, then cars, and forty years later signs a legendary Brazilian driver who has a public and expensive feud with his French teammate.
Novice
You mentioned that I'm arguing an opinion, but the fact is; we're both arguing opinions.
Its you're opinion that there is nothing that makes a supercar special.
Its my opinion that there is something that makes a supercar special.
Yes, that's true that whatever definition I give of a supercar, sports car, SUV; it would be coming from a personal view point, and therefore yes it would be arguable.
But, still there are certain implied rules in making a supercar, that make it a supercar.
Agree/disagree its up you; for now just read onward.
For example; can you build a 4dr supercar that's capable of driving, rallying, drifting and make it the size of a Hummer just because it probably go well with today's or more importantly tomorrow's market?
Can you?
All I'm saying is that there has to be something that distinguishes a supercar from the rest. (Like the reason why the F40's a supercar, while the new Civic isn't)
And from what I've come to know its the drive.
Supercars drive a certain way, a way that no other car can replicate.
That's what makes them so special, so unique, so desirable.
If you disagree then give me a reason as to why even you would consider the F40 a supercar, while a civic just a civic.
Last edited by Newyorkkopter; 01-04-2009 at 11:25 PM.
Enthusiast
I'm surprised how long this thread has gone on.
My two cents, I like both cars a lot. But for me I would have to say the 959 has the slightest edge. A super/rally car... now that's insane.
BTW: I over the break I picked up the SE copy of EVO Porsche Supercars, which had a very impressive article on the 959 and the Dakar plus other things too. Go take a look at it.
Fanatic
I never stated there isn't something that makes a supercar special. What I said is that there isn't a real and objective way to recognize, define or distinguish a supercar. And I even said all I was writing about the cars, every cars, is a personal opinion.
[QUOTE=Newyorkkopter;860117]Yes, that's true that whatever definition I give of a supercar, sports car, SUV; it would be coming from a personal view point, and therefore yes it would be arguable.[quote]
But, still there are certain implied rules in making a supercar, that make it a supercar.
Agree/disagree its up you; for now just read onward. [quote]
you are just repeating your previous thoughts in different words, still those "rules" are completely arguable.
even assuming they could exist out of the personal interpretation, I suppose some strictly technically defined references should be given.
by the way, let's go on.
actually, it's not that difficult: consider one of those prototypes for the Dakar rally. they are quite big, and they could even been equipped with a 4 door sedan body. two requirements have been satisfied.
about the rallying capabilities, they are already satisfied with the fact it's a Dakar prototype.
about the drifting capabilities (are you serious?), usually rally cars are quite god at that, while those cars aren't good at driving (I assume quickly) on a track or on the road.
well, those cars are quite light, and that's really useful. second, their suspensions are designed so to face bug excursions and compressions, so there is a lot of room to work with.
considering in a rally those capabilities are less required, that room could be used to change the suspension's layout so to be more road-friendly, and even electronically adjustable. at the same time, smaller tires, with a harder compounds and a more compact design of th external surface (tread, is this the correct word?) and a smaller ground clearance would be adopted.
with differentials, both mechanical or electronic, the traction of the vehicle could be easily set to face both road and off road, and even a drifting day.
now, since it's quite difficult to say that drifting is real motorsports, I would consider that if the car is able to take corner with massive oversteering and smooking tires, the target would be achieved.
about the driving capabilities, I suppose the vehicle could be quite good at that, even if not at the level of a Group N car or of a GT car, but still pretty fast and most of all more fast than what the great majority of drivers are capable of managing.
post split in two due to length
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Fanatic
second part of the post
what's a F40 to me?
it's a performance oriented car, meaning the main aspect of the design at first glance seems to have been the achievement an extremely high level of performance. the kind of performance we are talking about is derived mainly from a racing category like group C.
so it wasn't a car design to obtain the maximum performance on the road, or off road either.
there has been and eventually will be others like it, but what that distinguish the F40 from the majority of them is the fact that it took the concept of the 288 GTO a step forward, improving the specs of the car, creating a exclusive bodywork (and so image) for it, but most of all, without including in the design anything not necessary for the achievement of the maximum performance. which doesn't coincide with what is necessary for driving.
in the end the car resulted as an extreme design from each point of view, astonishing performance, lack of refinement (for enthusiasts, that is the actual refinement perhaps) for the interior, it was something the world didn't know before of that, even if probably there has been other examples before I pretty sure.
to be honest, the 288 GTO was born with Group B rallying in mind, an idea never materialized in something concrete except the 288 GTO Evoluzione Concept, which was eventually became the first step in the direction of the F40.
so, as you can see even the F40, or if you prefer its predecessor 288 GTO, were born for rallying. blasphemy? I don't think so.
guess what? the same happened with the Porsche 959, except that two different version of it entered both rallying (Dakar) and street racing (Le Mans), with excellent results, while the F40 saw, even if with very good results, only the tarmac, but just for a matter of time and luck.
useful links: 1984 - 1986 Ferrari 288 GTO - Images, Specifications and Information
1985 - 1986 Ferrari 288 GTO Evoluzione - Images, Specifications and Information
1987 - 1992 Ferrari F40 - Images, Specifications and Information
1989 - 1994 Ferrari F40 LM - Images, Specifications and Information
1991 - 1992 Ferrari F40 GT - Images, Specifications and Information
I purposedly avoided using any kind of word as super or sport car, I just sticked describing, quite quickly and superficially perhaps, what the F40 undeniably is.
it has a special place in my mind because being a kind in those years obviously means that the F40 was one of the first red car I saw and it obviously impressed me.
but the same is for the 959. even being different from each other, they both are special, they both have heritage and they both were ground breaking when the have been unveiled. I could call them for these reasons supercars or perhaps exotics, but regardless of the name I could give them, that wouldn0t change what they are and what they represent to me.
what's a Civic?
a Civic is compact car (arguable considering the different markets where it's sold), basically a daily commuter, a nothing more.
it has always had something for sportiness, something clearly visible with its renown Type-R or Si versions. this, and particular styling choices (especially in the latest version), helped distinguishing it from its opponents as the Toyota Corolla, which is completely missing of that "sport" touch or of a special look.
that's what differentiate them between each other, they are aimed to different people, so besides being the same vehicle (not literally, but they are in the same segment and are even technically similar), they have completely different images.
that's why it's somehow difficult or at least rarer to see a customized Corolla, because the first thing that comes to mind after Corolla is "mom".
but that doesn't mean the Corolla is a bad car, actually is even better than the Civic because it's better at their primary purpose, commuting, meaning the Corolla is usually more reliable, cheaper to run and so on.
I would still take a Civic because I really like its new interiors btw.
how can a Civic be compared to an F40?
actually it can't, and I'm not even considering the performance of the two cars.
the F40 was meant to be a limited edition car, so emissions levels, safety, comfort were all things regarded as less important during the development.
for the Civic instead, those are part of the highest important.
then, considering the F40 was bought for its performance and even more for its name and what it stands for, there were things that were less important even for the customers, for example the overall quality, the usability, the mileage, the rude behavior or the insensible brakes, the hard suspensions or the noise invading the car.
that allowed the designers and engineers to don't care about a lot of stuff which is actually what makes more difficult to create a Civic than an F40.
forget about the production, it is impossible for a small manufacturer or even a supplier to even just design a compact car, being a Civic or a 500, while the world is full of plenty of successful examples of makers like Pagani, Gumpert and so on. that why the recent project T.25 by Gordon Murray is so relevant to the car industry.
so after having said the F40 and the Civic were different cars since the design point of view, I can't avoid talking about the difference level of performance.
obviously we are talking about to completely different worlds. no matter of how a Civic can be tuned, even being more powerful or even fast on a circuit than the F40, it's not going to be even near what the F40 is, because now the different designing point of views come to the surface.
if a lot of attention was payed during the Civic project to a lot fo details and parts simply ignored by the technicians in Maranello, when we come to performance it's the very opposite.
the F40 probably passed more time on Ferrari's tracks and local roads than the Civic in artificial weather rooms.
and it's simply difficult even for the most important guy from the tuning world o recreate the work done by Ferrari on its Civic.
even for just a simply reason, it would be focus just on making the car faster than the rest of the world, making it more showy, more customized and so on, but it would obviously fail in creating what the F40 is, that's to say a legend on wheels, the dream of every kid being him into tuning or not, creating something that bounded people paying up to 1 M $ or os for a new F40 when the factory was selling them for like a third of the price (I don't now the exact figure because I know the prices in italian currency of the time, and don't know how was the exchanging rate int he period).
am I saying the F40 is supercar? again, is just a definition, and according to yours it isn0t because I stated the car is special, it's astonishing, it's desirable and it's a legend without never talking about how it drives. it could even be a completely disappointment, but my points would be still here to stand.
what about the Civic? it's a commuter, while the F40 isn't. the have a lot of parts in common, an engine, four wheels and so on, but they are actually two different things, they are two different approaches to the idea of car. one could even argue that assuming one is car, the other isn't so much are the differences. so one of them is a supercar? perhaps, but again I never considered the drive.
I'm pretty sure there are guys in the tuning world that consider some cars that I don't even know the best in the world, real supercars even according to your definition of the ultimate drive, of being special.
I couldn't disagree more, but to each his own.
Considering even you definition of ultimate drive (still pretty vague), one could find it in a daily commuter as the Civic, or in a 7 replica, or in a fast and fat GT car.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
Novice
Oh okay so there is something that makes supercars special, but its just not real, recognizable or describable?
That doesn't make sense because how can you recognize a supercar without knowing what makes it a supercar?
So there can be a 4dr supercar the size of a Hummer for driving/rallying/drifting as long as there's a demand for it.
Wow...and I thought the Veyron was the last nail in the coffin for supercars
The definition that I gave was that a supercar is car that drives like no other car
Even if you never drive the F40, it still doesn't change the fact that, if driven, it would drive like no other car.
Therefore, the F40 is a supercar.
A civic doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because it has everyday technology that would get in the way of your enjoyment.
Therefore a civic isn't a supercar.
A GT car doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because it has excessive luxuries that would ruin the feel of driving.
Therefore a GT car isn't a supercar
A 7 replica doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because its front engined. The drive is already compromised.
Therefore a 7 replica isn't a supercar.
You're basically writing that supercars are just an opinion.
And If that's so then the term supercar should be taken out of language because its so vague that describes nothing.
To a person whose definition of supercar is a car that drives like no other car, a F40 could be a supercar
To another person whose definition of supercar is a car that can do more than one thing, a Civic could be a supercar
But that's not the case.
There is something unique to supercars that makes them supercars.
Without it they would just be cars.
You believe you can't know what makes supercars special; but that doesn't make sense because how can you recognize supercars if you don't even know what makes them supercars?
Just by personal preference?
Whatever you feel is a supercar, you call a supercar?
I feel that a Prius is a supercar because its got super gas mileage.
I feel that a Go-Kart is a supercar because its super-fun
I feel that a bumper car is a supercar because of its super ability to crash and keep on going.
See how vague it can get without a real/objective way to define a supercar?
You need to have some grounds on which to define a supercar.
Otherwise even a kid's r/c car could arguably be a supercar.
Last edited by Newyorkkopter; 01-06-2009 at 07:49 PM.
Enthusiast
Newyorkkopter, could you list five supercars and give your reasons why they are supercars to you? I would like to see your logic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote