Supercars and the future...
Discussion
Following on from the thread about the Lambo 'G' prices, I thought I would open it to the forum in general... 
Are supercars heading in the wrong direction ?
IMO they should hold traits that the owner puts up with, in the knowledge they own something so spectacular.
With the likes of the Porsche 996 Turbo and 'G', all of these traits are ironed out with electronic trickery (not sure on how much in 'G')
Should not manufacturers be concentrating on how the car handles/rides/steers/brakes/performs naturally and develop this, rather than sticking in a bit of software that works it all out for them ?
This thread is not meant to rouse anybody or the choices they made, but more to learn if other PHer's feel the same ?
Ta, Raks
ps. If anyone wants to prove why they own their supercar to me, by and large please feel free to contact me and take me for a ride
Are supercars heading in the wrong direction ?
IMO they should hold traits that the owner puts up with, in the knowledge they own something so spectacular.
With the likes of the Porsche 996 Turbo and 'G', all of these traits are ironed out with electronic trickery (not sure on how much in 'G')
Should not manufacturers be concentrating on how the car handles/rides/steers/brakes/performs naturally and develop this, rather than sticking in a bit of software that works it all out for them ?
This thread is not meant to rouse anybody or the choices they made, but more to learn if other PHer's feel the same ?
Ta, Raks
ps. If anyone wants to prove why they own their supercar to me, by and large please feel free to contact me and take me for a ride
There is a definite tension between cars offered as usable daily drivers and the weekend toy that will always have a low mileage.
IMO, there is a growing trend toward having more than one car, and for having a Ferrari/ Lambo or whatever as an indulgence. With so many of the buyers being city dwellers, the obvious compromises of a exotic ( security, for example ) often result in a two, three or four car garage.
I think the Gallardo is not special enough for a weekender, as it is too skewed toward every day usability.
it is no coincidence that one of the most successful Ferrari's in recent years in the Stradale. Even Ferrari have been surprised - with Stradale production taking up a much larger proportion of 360 orders than expected. The Stradale is not a daily driver - and it is all the better for it.
Even Porsche acknowledge this. The GT3 and the GT3RS exist to meet the change in demand.
I expect to see Lambo produce more hardcore versions of the Gallardo. At least, I hope they do because right now I would rather have a 360 / 430 and an Alfa 147GTA / Mini Cooper S for tooling around town in, over a Gallardo.
IMO, there is a growing trend toward having more than one car, and for having a Ferrari/ Lambo or whatever as an indulgence. With so many of the buyers being city dwellers, the obvious compromises of a exotic ( security, for example ) often result in a two, three or four car garage.
I think the Gallardo is not special enough for a weekender, as it is too skewed toward every day usability.
it is no coincidence that one of the most successful Ferrari's in recent years in the Stradale. Even Ferrari have been surprised - with Stradale production taking up a much larger proportion of 360 orders than expected. The Stradale is not a daily driver - and it is all the better for it.
Even Porsche acknowledge this. The GT3 and the GT3RS exist to meet the change in demand.
I expect to see Lambo produce more hardcore versions of the Gallardo. At least, I hope they do because right now I would rather have a 360 / 430 and an Alfa 147GTA / Mini Cooper S for tooling around town in, over a Gallardo.
Raks said:
Because the 147GTA is a lovely little car, possessed of one of the best engines available in any car at any price.
Sorry, elaborate a little there...
... just curious if this is a good car as am looking for a runabout at the mo
Its got an Alfa V6. Now this engine is one of the greats, and goes back through various versions over many Alfa models in the 80's and 90's.
It is tremendously free revving and powerful, and makes a fabulous noise as it goes about its business. It gives the car great character, and really sings when you push it.
Drive one. Then you'll see what I mean.
I have a Cooper S works as a daily driver right now. Fantastic car, but I am tempted to swap it for a GTA.
assume it drives nothing like that god awful GTV/spider thing - one of the single worst sports car attempts I have ever driven......
Raks - its a good question.
personally I havent bought a Gallardo for some of the reasons mentioned...but mroe because I know tehre are other, more interesting variants, waiting in the wings.
You have to look at what Lamborghini the BUSINESS do, rather than just 'lamborghini the enthusiastic car maker' do - which is where it started. Inetrestingly Ferarri have done exactly the same thing. I woudl say that one reason the CS has sold so well is that the basic 360 is dull and compromised compared to previous fezzas (my opinion only) - at least Audi havent gone the golf bag route!! Howerver...lambo only sold relatively few diablos a year...they sell very few murcis too.....but they're selling a shed load of Gallardos (ignore UK market figures - 4% of world total and somewhat irrelevant) - mainly cos whilst lots of people (smug me) want to have their silly exotic and weekend car, a lot of people cant realistically afford to do that. bear in mind price of extra insurance and servicing and taxing and storing etc...pruchase price is rarely the real decider on what you can/can't afford. Therefore, like the 996, the Gallardo gives serious hoon ability and usefulness.
I think in 18 motnhs time - after addition of Murci GT/Sv and Gallardo similar, people may feel a litle different about Audis 'germanic influence'.....
main things is though.....people like me have always justified what are essentially failings of car - the fact that my diablo fouls the plugs in traffic unless you know what you're doing isn't an exotic 'feature' - its an annoying technical issue. Same with the fact the esprits windscreen fogs up permanently and lots of 355s have a slightly two-stage throttle. People excuse these issues cos they've just spent a stupid amount of money on something essentially unjustifiable!
Where in future...? like there is today,,they'll always be a choice of sublime to ridiculous if you ask me. Manufacturers like Koenigsegg and Pagani are allowing lambo to make a more accesible car.....
all my opinions of course!
cheers
Night
Raks - its a good question.
personally I havent bought a Gallardo for some of the reasons mentioned...but mroe because I know tehre are other, more interesting variants, waiting in the wings.
You have to look at what Lamborghini the BUSINESS do, rather than just 'lamborghini the enthusiastic car maker' do - which is where it started. Inetrestingly Ferarri have done exactly the same thing. I woudl say that one reason the CS has sold so well is that the basic 360 is dull and compromised compared to previous fezzas (my opinion only) - at least Audi havent gone the golf bag route!! Howerver...lambo only sold relatively few diablos a year...they sell very few murcis too.....but they're selling a shed load of Gallardos (ignore UK market figures - 4% of world total and somewhat irrelevant) - mainly cos whilst lots of people (smug me) want to have their silly exotic and weekend car, a lot of people cant realistically afford to do that. bear in mind price of extra insurance and servicing and taxing and storing etc...pruchase price is rarely the real decider on what you can/can't afford. Therefore, like the 996, the Gallardo gives serious hoon ability and usefulness.
I think in 18 motnhs time - after addition of Murci GT/Sv and Gallardo similar, people may feel a litle different about Audis 'germanic influence'.....
main things is though.....people like me have always justified what are essentially failings of car - the fact that my diablo fouls the plugs in traffic unless you know what you're doing isn't an exotic 'feature' - its an annoying technical issue. Same with the fact the esprits windscreen fogs up permanently and lots of 355s have a slightly two-stage throttle. People excuse these issues cos they've just spent a stupid amount of money on something essentially unjustifiable!
Where in future...? like there is today,,they'll always be a choice of sublime to ridiculous if you ask me. Manufacturers like Koenigsegg and Pagani are allowing lambo to make a more accesible car.....
all my opinions of course!
cheers
Night
Perhaps we are reaching the limit of useable horsepower. There is a German estate car with nearly 500bhp and a whale like monstrosity with over 600. Next M5, next mid size Fcar and current Gallardo are all 500. You can only use so much acceleration and top speed on the real roads. Performance has become so easy to design and manufacture that it is coming in easier to use packages, hence the uber saloons with sports car performance. The full size exotics like the 575 and Murcelliago are no longer that far ahead of the mid size cars from the same stable. No longer do we have a Daytona v 246 difference.
Watched the Noble 0-100-0 video, if we continue the horsepower race we will have estate cars and ubersaloons doing that with automatic gearboxes. Can the roads take it?
Watched the Noble 0-100-0 video, if we continue the horsepower race we will have estate cars and ubersaloons doing that with automatic gearboxes. Can the roads take it?
Raks - Technology is such that "supercars" just don't need to be recalcitrant anymore to deliver "exotic perfomance." I'm fine with that because cars that you previously realised were thrilling were actually just bad... (Countach? oh dear.... Early Diablo ? oh NOOO!!! The F40 is at least as plain crap as it is awesome to drive - I mean the brakes are a JOKE - the gearbox/clutch sucks too).... BUT there is a big problem here (see below).
As Night suggested, these manufactureres are businesses now - not small enthusiasts building focused cars for other like minded people. Market research (mostly US based) wants easy to drive (no problem with that - see above) super-duper fast cars which look cool and are soft and comfortable and capable.... BUT what most of the supercar manufacturers are doing is losing sight of the fact that capability/performance delivered with cutting edge technology does not,in itself, deliver an supercar or indeed a fun drive - look at the 996TT - what an AWESOME car and yet what a BORING car... YAWN!
Ferrari especially are ever so slightly losing the plot (not commercially I must say) - very few of their current cars, completeley stock, offer big thrills...
The stock 360 is a cruiser for God sake...the F355 is much better
The Gallardo absolutely KILLS the 360 in the performance/capability stakes so it gets the nod over the 360.
575M is one of THE most satisfying cars I've driven but it's lacking that whole "supercar drama" (but that is the whole point of the it I suppose).
The only true supercar out there is the Murcielago which makes the best use of the technology available and is easy but still a very thrilling drive - even when pootling around.
The best we can hope for is that they will offer "hardcore" variants of their current range which we will buy while the footballers/Americans/old-men will buy the other drivel.
Bruciebabe - edited to say - with chassis technology moving at least as fast as power there is no such thing as "useable horsepower limit."
>> Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Wednesday 25th August 15:31
As Night suggested, these manufactureres are businesses now - not small enthusiasts building focused cars for other like minded people. Market research (mostly US based) wants easy to drive (no problem with that - see above) super-duper fast cars which look cool and are soft and comfortable and capable.... BUT what most of the supercar manufacturers are doing is losing sight of the fact that capability/performance delivered with cutting edge technology does not,in itself, deliver an supercar or indeed a fun drive - look at the 996TT - what an AWESOME car and yet what a BORING car... YAWN!
Ferrari especially are ever so slightly losing the plot (not commercially I must say) - very few of their current cars, completeley stock, offer big thrills...
The stock 360 is a cruiser for God sake...the F355 is much better
The Gallardo absolutely KILLS the 360 in the performance/capability stakes so it gets the nod over the 360.
575M is one of THE most satisfying cars I've driven but it's lacking that whole "supercar drama" (but that is the whole point of the it I suppose).
The only true supercar out there is the Murcielago which makes the best use of the technology available and is easy but still a very thrilling drive - even when pootling around.
The best we can hope for is that they will offer "hardcore" variants of their current range which we will buy while the footballers/Americans/old-men will buy the other drivel.
Bruciebabe - edited to say - with chassis technology moving at least as fast as power there is no such thing as "useable horsepower limit."
>> Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Wednesday 25th August 15:31
I didn't mean useable horsepower limit in terms of grip/traction/chassis technology or whatever. I meant in terms of lots of people actually going out and doing sub 4 seconds 0 to 60 on a regular basis at traffic lights. Our road system, traffic and the education of other road users possibly put a top limit on what horsepower is put in many cars.
Already I have problems with people pulling out in front of my Caterham at roudabouts. Not because they didn't see it but because they expected me to brake for the roundabout. The speed a Caterham can carry through a roundabout is just outside their expectations of a road car.
Already I have problems with people pulling out in front of my Caterham at roudabouts. Not because they didn't see it but because they expected me to brake for the roundabout. The speed a Caterham can carry through a roundabout is just outside their expectations of a road car.
Nightmare said:
assume it drives nothing like that god awful GTV/spider thing - one of the single worst sports car attempts I have ever driven......
cheers
Night
What was so bad about it? Which model did you test drive? The 3.0 GTV is very stable upto 155 and the engine sounds brilliant. The dealers are the main thing that suck with an Alfa.
sjn2004 said:
The dealers are the main thing that suck with an Alfa.
If you were to delete "with an Alfa" you'd still be right.
As to the question, yes, supercars are heading in the wrong direction, hopefully just on a short detour. On the thread that started this, I mentioned that the much-vaunted 360 in race mode can't post a time within two seconds of a standard road 911 (996) at Castle Combe. So no thanks, whatever else the 360 S has going for it. And that stripe - did somebody say Halfords? Then I won't. No, it shouldn't be the case that you have to pay £400k (new) or £150k (pre-owned) for a really fast Ferrari. Detour.
Always thought I would want a Murci, then having got up close and personal it's just sooooo big. Thought my Koenig was big (and forget the reverse Halfords joke as somebody's already beat you to it) but the Murci is just, er, so big. Goes like nothing else, looks like nothing else, but it still hasn't taken my heart away from the Diablo. When the devil car got sorted as far as it could be it was infinitely desirable. A Diablo sticks two leather clad fingers up to the islingtonian pc brigade and the ecotwonks, whereas the Murci offers a solitary middle finger wrapped in alcantara. Sidetracked, see.
996TT? I already gave up on the 993TT. Somebody said it was so good they had got rid of turbo lag. Why?? That's the whole point of a turbo. If it's so bad, remember that naturally aspirated cars have infinite turbo lag. The key is to optimise it, not dial it out. Sure, no need to wait so long that everything else has left you while you read War and Peace, but not so short that you lose the anticipation, and then the Fffff...factor. So a detour here too.
Hopefully someday soon the three big supercar players will make their bean counters play equal fiddle to their enthusiasts, realise that these cars aren't meant to be right for everybody, and design / build them to perform accordingly. There would still be more than enough money coming in, and maybe more.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 19th September 18:02
For sometime now I have felt that tire technology has improved so imensely that in the mean time cars got porkier and porkier (put on kilos) and the cars became more cushy and plush yet the performance increased. This was sort of a crock because had the cars stayed light and small the end performance would have been much more incredable. The manufacturers have made some marginal attempts to lighten their cars but are relying again on easy hp increases over looseing weight or stripping the cars out. The 360 CS and GT3 RS aren't that light compared to the Ultima GTR or Elise (still great cars!) So yes they cater their cars to basket ball players, executives, and the ferrari clan (so to speak) that desire civility. My definition of a sports car is that of the 1930-50's where the street car was very simular to the race car (250 GTO, 300 SL) When you got in you were focused on driving alone.
Ferrari is interesting because they have always tended to be down on power but there chassis were quite good? (I have not driven one just read about them) So this next Ferrari really looks promising but again its not light weight. Is it under 3000lbs? The makers are responding to what sells.
Performance figures sell but the driving experience is so difficult to quantify. Peter Dron's book on the Countach basically says what some of the Lambo fans are saying that, Lambos always had a slightly sharper edge for performance rather than comfort compared to Ferrari's. (is this still true?) I have to wonder about why a performance nut would go with a Lambo (or any expensive car) before investigating an Ultima GTR or Stealth B6 sport. The fear is though that the manufacturers are building cars like the Dodge Viper 4000lbs, 550hp, and a lazy chassis. Oh yeah and there isn't a whole lot of electronic sculdugery going on. Usually, everybody switches those off on the track anyway because they are slow. Launch control is amusing. Paddle shifters are amusing too but then you loose the heel tow technique. Way to go Porsche for avoiding the paddles. I really like TVR's philosophy of avoiding ABS, airbags (get a good 4 point), and traction control. I like brutality in my life right now and maybe when I'm 55 I'll want soft cushy pillows on wheels. And the car I drive isn't very brutal but when the money comes in. . . . I'll prolly just kart race!
Ferrari is interesting because they have always tended to be down on power but there chassis were quite good? (I have not driven one just read about them) So this next Ferrari really looks promising but again its not light weight. Is it under 3000lbs? The makers are responding to what sells.
Performance figures sell but the driving experience is so difficult to quantify. Peter Dron's book on the Countach basically says what some of the Lambo fans are saying that, Lambos always had a slightly sharper edge for performance rather than comfort compared to Ferrari's. (is this still true?) I have to wonder about why a performance nut would go with a Lambo (or any expensive car) before investigating an Ultima GTR or Stealth B6 sport. The fear is though that the manufacturers are building cars like the Dodge Viper 4000lbs, 550hp, and a lazy chassis. Oh yeah and there isn't a whole lot of electronic sculdugery going on. Usually, everybody switches those off on the track anyway because they are slow. Launch control is amusing. Paddle shifters are amusing too but then you loose the heel tow technique. Way to go Porsche for avoiding the paddles. I really like TVR's philosophy of avoiding ABS, airbags (get a good 4 point), and traction control. I like brutality in my life right now and maybe when I'm 55 I'll want soft cushy pillows on wheels. And the car I drive isn't very brutal but when the money comes in. . . . I'll prolly just kart race!sjn2004 said:
assume it drives nothing like that god awful GTV/spider thing - one of the single worst sports car attempts I have ever driven......
cheers
Night
What was so bad about it? Which model did you test drive? The 3.0 GTV is very stable upto 155 and the engine sounds brilliant. The dealers are the main thing that suck with an Alfa.
realised that I should have clarified that I drove the girly version - 2.0 TS. The engine (even in that one) was really ncie - their gears seem to go on forever...but
1) The visibility forward, side and back was awful. You might think it funny me complaining about that of all things but
2) It wasn't very fast - which is a good excuse for exotica ("Yeah i cant see much behind me, but who cares, it aint catching up!")
3) The ride was REALLY hard (again see point 2)
4) It didnt actually handle (the way I like cars to handle - Ive always thought this was somewhat subjective)
think the spiders look would have made up for some of thedownsides, but in the end I was left feeling that it really was simply a posing pouch with socks in it!
N
Murcielago_Boy said:
The F40 is at least as plain crap as it is awesome to drive - I mean the brakes are a JOKE - the gearbox/clutch sucks too)....
These are interesting points. Have you driven an F40 to qualify your "brakes are a joke" comment?
Murcielago_Boy said:
The only true supercar out there is the Murcielago which makes the best use of the technology available and is easy but still a very thrilling drive - even when pootling around.
The best we can hope for is that they will offer "hardcore" variants of their current range which we will buy while the footballers/Americans/old-men will buy the other drivel.
Are you saying that the current range of Ferraris is "drivel"? Maybe you need to recalibrate what your idea of a cruiser is. Try comparing a stock 360 with your average Mondeo and I certainly wouldn't say it was drivel.
Nightmare said:
Nightmare said:
assume it drives nothing like that god awful GTV/spider thing - one of the single worst sports car attempts I have ever driven......
cheers
Night
What was so bad about it? Which model did you test drive? The 3.0 GTV is very stable upto 155 and the engine sounds brilliant. The dealers are the main thing that suck with an Alfa.
realised that I should have clarified that I drove the girly version - 2.0 TS. The engine (even in that one) was really ncie - their gears seem to go on forever...but
1) The visibility forward, side and back was awful. You might think it funny me complaining about that of all things but
2) It wasn't very fast - which is a good excuse for exotica ("Yeah i cant see much behind me, but who cares, it aint catching up!")
3) The ride was REALLY hard (again see point 2)
4) It didnt actually handle (the way I like cars to handle - Ive always thought this was somewhat subjective)
think the spiders look would have made up for some of thedownsides, but in the end I was left feeling that it really was simply a posing pouch with socks in it!
N
I have the 3.0 GTV, I stayed away from the 2.0 as it was too slow. The 3.0 V6 Alfa really is great, the noise it makes is worth the downsides. I've taken out more than a few Subaru's on the 30-140 race(motorway slip roads and they were slip streaming me). You need a slow rolling start as its FWD. The visibilty is poor in some area's but it makes it feel different from a 'normal' car. Part of the reason you see so few about is due to the insurance cost, my 3.0 is only £100 cheaper to insure than a 355/360!
All this to do about racing/dragging, with slipstreaming, a car a league down can easily keep pace upto 100-120mph. 99% of drivers bottle out though once its over 100 though!
Let the finance department rule the roost, and you end up with dullsville. Cars designed and made down to a price.
Once you do that, you compromise them.
Supercars should not be compromised. They don't have to be accessible to everyone (either in the way they drive or how much they cost), and you could argue that once they are, they no longer fit in the Supercar bracket.
Designing them around luggage capacity, around their ability to carry golf clubs etc is missing the point entirely. Use a 456 for that. Or an LM002. Or even a BMW/Merc/Audi/Jag.
How would the Countach have looked if the designer had worried about anyone more than 5'6" driving it comfortably, or being able to see out of it? What about the Miura? Or if the 250GT SWB designer had worried about not suffocating the driver with fuel fumes (from what I once read! Oh to have the chance to test this out!).
It's perhaps possible, with clever design, to engage the owner without such major compromises. But the fun of it is that you have something ludicrously expensive, but designed with a strict ideal above all else. your family with 2.2 kids, a labrador and a penchant for Rav4's is not meant to understand it. If they do, you've failed!
The marketeers shouldn't always be listened too either. These cars are (or rather should be) made in such low volumes that anything they kick out would sell. The kudos of owning a focussed, exotic and rare machine is enough to make many people make compromises themselves rather than the other way round.
With every manufacturer under the sun able to pump out motors that crack 5 sec to 60 and 150+ vMax, the Supercar guys need to differentiate themselves.
Better noise, better looks and, most importantly, better seat of the pants feelings about the whole machine.
Making them anodyne because your wealthy, plaid trousered media magnate can't drive is missing the point. You'll sell cars now, but in 5yrs time when they've moved on to the next thing (boats, light aircraft, the next old badge to be resurrected by a main stream manufacturer wanting a halo range, divorce), you're going to have a raft of cars that people don't really want. Used values will nose dive and people across the board will desert you (enthusiasts will long for the "old days" and Mr Plaid Trousers will laugh in the face of your residuals).
Doom and gloom? Maybe not. There are some great cars being made at the moment, but there's a crossroads near by. Let's see the SV/Vantage/CS/GTx versions of these cars made and let's see them be truly differentiated. Really light weight, really communicative chassis. Real world differences in every aspect. And let's have the golf bag space be designed with two indentations in it to carry crash helmets!
Finally, while we're at it, let's see one big change with most of these cars - no more parts bin switchgear. TVR can do it, so there's no excuse.
PS I don't think the point of Turbos was turbo lag Weren't they initially designed as an experiment to help fuel economy etc? And then someone realised you could really cause mayhem with power...?
I'm all for cars that are a challenge to drive, but cars that wilfully spit you off the road are in grave danger of crossing the line
Once you do that, you compromise them.
Supercars should not be compromised. They don't have to be accessible to everyone (either in the way they drive or how much they cost), and you could argue that once they are, they no longer fit in the Supercar bracket.
Designing them around luggage capacity, around their ability to carry golf clubs etc is missing the point entirely. Use a 456 for that. Or an LM002. Or even a BMW/Merc/Audi/Jag.
How would the Countach have looked if the designer had worried about anyone more than 5'6" driving it comfortably, or being able to see out of it? What about the Miura? Or if the 250GT SWB designer had worried about not suffocating the driver with fuel fumes (from what I once read! Oh to have the chance to test this out!).
It's perhaps possible, with clever design, to engage the owner without such major compromises. But the fun of it is that you have something ludicrously expensive, but designed with a strict ideal above all else. your family with 2.2 kids, a labrador and a penchant for Rav4's is not meant to understand it. If they do, you've failed!
The marketeers shouldn't always be listened too either. These cars are (or rather should be) made in such low volumes that anything they kick out would sell. The kudos of owning a focussed, exotic and rare machine is enough to make many people make compromises themselves rather than the other way round.
With every manufacturer under the sun able to pump out motors that crack 5 sec to 60 and 150+ vMax, the Supercar guys need to differentiate themselves.
Better noise, better looks and, most importantly, better seat of the pants feelings about the whole machine.
Making them anodyne because your wealthy, plaid trousered media magnate can't drive is missing the point. You'll sell cars now, but in 5yrs time when they've moved on to the next thing (boats, light aircraft, the next old badge to be resurrected by a main stream manufacturer wanting a halo range, divorce), you're going to have a raft of cars that people don't really want. Used values will nose dive and people across the board will desert you (enthusiasts will long for the "old days" and Mr Plaid Trousers will laugh in the face of your residuals).
Doom and gloom? Maybe not. There are some great cars being made at the moment, but there's a crossroads near by. Let's see the SV/Vantage/CS/GTx versions of these cars made and let's see them be truly differentiated. Really light weight, really communicative chassis. Real world differences in every aspect. And let's have the golf bag space be designed with two indentations in it to carry crash helmets!
Finally, while we're at it, let's see one big change with most of these cars - no more parts bin switchgear. TVR can do it, so there's no excuse.
PS I don't think the point of Turbos was turbo lag
Weren't they initially designed as an experiment to help fuel economy etc? And then someone realised you could really cause mayhem with power...? I'm all for cars that are a challenge to drive, but cars that wilfully spit you off the road are in grave danger of crossing the line
murph7355 said:Dullsville...yeah. As for the turbo thing, reckon you've taken me a bit too literally entirely by accident o'course. Fans of naturally aspirated cars won't understand what second and third order acceleration means, even if they've got the theory it's not the same as feeling it. Dial out the turbo's impact and you get closer and closer to linear/first order acceleration. Which is fine to a point but it's also where we came in - Dullsville.
Let the finance department rule the roost, and you end up with dullsville......PS I don't think the point of Turbos was turbo lag
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff