|
doogz
18,704 posts
56 months
|
GroundEffect said: I wasn't agreeing with his entire post, y'know. You still haven't answered me though? Or do you not have an opinion on it?
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,417 posts
143 months
|
indi pearl said: NSX comes in at 1365kg............but I thought all Pistoheaders prefered "plumper" ladies! only the ones that are 'powerfully built' directors!
|
|
|
DanDC5
6,927 posts
36 months
|
Marf said: kambites said: Surely the NSX isn't under 1200kg is it?  No. I think '92 Type R's are something like 1165kgs. But only 276bhp.... Normals were about 1230kgs. Weight on the Facelift models was higher.
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,205 posts
25 months
|
doogz said: GroundEffect said: I wasn't agreeing with his entire post, y'know. You still haven't answered me though? Or do you not have an opinion on it? No opinion as I have never even seen the layout of the MR2.
|
|
|
doogz
18,704 posts
56 months
|
DanDC5 said: I think '92 Type R's are something like 1165kgs. But only 276bhp.... And the rest.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
So we have a few things that meet all but one of the OP's (rather strange) criteria, but I think only the Ultima with a suitable engine meets all of them? So there you go OP, go and buy an Ultima. 
|
|
|
Bill
26,455 posts
124 months
|
DanDC5 said: I think '92 Type R's are something like 1165kgs. But only 276bhp.... So it's not a proper sportscar, despite being "modern", if 20 years old  Anyone seen the OP recently?
|
|
|
doogz
18,704 posts
56 months
|
GroundEffect said: No opinion as I have never even seen the layout of the MR2. Dude. What are you on about? Mid engined cars are compromised in terms of layout, you stated. Except for the ones you haven't seen. You have no opinion of them. Useful contribution
|
|
|
madbadger
9,132 posts
113 months
|
Marf said: Technically the FD3S is mid engined, the engine sits behind the front axle, making it front-mid engined, like the S2000, GT86, RX8, GT86 etc  As is also the case with the TVR T350.
|
|
|
DanDC5
6,927 posts
36 months
|
doogz said: DanDC5 said: I think '92 Type R's are something like 1165kgs. But only 276bhp.... And the rest. I was wrong. The Type R is 1230. Sure I've seen them quoted as sub 1200 somewhere before though. Might have been dry weight.
|
|
|
chevronb37
5,138 posts
55 months
|
DanDC5 said: doogz said: A 300bhp supercharged K20 Elise isn't a "proper sports car" because it only has 4 cylinders? Funny guy. He's kind of right, it's not a 'proper' sports car, it's a 'truly bloody terrifying' one  Correct - they're absolutely bloody mental. This is a brilliantly stupid thread.
|
|
|
doogz
18,704 posts
56 months
|
DanDC5 said: I was wrong. The Type R is 1230. Sure I've seen them quoted as sub 1200 somewhere before though. Might have been dry weight. Sorry, I was referring to the power. You think any of these jap cars, Impreza, Supra, NSX, Evo, etc actually made bang on 276bhp?
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,205 posts
25 months
|
doogz said: GroundEffect said: No opinion as I have never even seen the layout of the MR2. Dude. What are you on about? Mid engined cars are compromised in terms of layout, you stated. Except for the ones you haven't seen. You have no opinion of them. Useful contribution They might have come up with some ingenius solution I've never seen before, but no, the basic architecture is not as good for packaging as a FR layout. That was my point - you choose what parameters you make most important and focus. I would go for FR as its easier to package and then sort out the other stuff after.
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
What exactly are these packaging problems you're talking about?
Cooling is a little more complicated, but most MR cars get around it by putting the radiators in the front. Otherwise it's mostly better for packaging because you don't have to run a prop-shaft through/under the passenger cell. Unless you're worried about luggage carrying capacity, but that's hardly the primary remit of a sports car.
I guess it just comes down to priorities, but for me the disadvantages of having the engine in front of the passenger cell massively outweigh the advantages.
|
|
|
doogz
18,704 posts
56 months
|
GroundEffect said: They might have come up with some ingenius solution I've never seen before, but no, the basic architecture is not as good for packaging as a FR layout. That was my point - you choose what parameters you make most important and focus. I would go for FR as its easier to package and then sort out the other stuff after. I think that depends on what you want from a car. The basic architecture, puts the engine near the driven wheels. The cooling issue, is it really an issue? When did anyone last really struggle with this, apart from the odd 458 catching fire? Yeah, you might loose out on storage space, but no-one buys a "proper sports car" because they want a decent sized boot. There's no huge tran tunnel running through the car taking up space inside, and MR affords more traction, generally speaking, than FMR does. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But it seems you are?
|
|
|
deltashad
2,743 posts
66 months
|
If the op waits a while the Alfa 4c will be on offer, albeit with only 4 cylinders.
Although there are plans in the pipeline for a Maserati 4c-v8.
Maserati would use the same sort of carbon monocoque construction but ditch the four-cylinder engine their the 454-horsepower Maserati 4.7-liter V8 built by Ferrari.
|
|
|
TinyCappo
1,395 posts
22 months
|
|
|
Carfolio
1,124 posts
50 months
|
GroundEffect said: The OP's requirements scream Lotus Evora. No, Ginetta G60.
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,205 posts
25 months
|
kambites said: What exactly are these packaging problems you're talking about?
Cooling is a little more complicated, but most MR cars get around it by putting the radiators in the front. Otherwise it's mostly better for packaging because you don't have to run a prop-shaft through/under the passenger cell. Unless you're worried about luggage carrying capacity, but that's hardly the primary remit of a sports car.
I guess it just comes down to priorities, but for me the disadvantages of having the engine in front of the passenger cell massively outweigh the advantages. Cooling system gets more complex, requires the engine water pump to work harder, and limits luggage space (which, you have to admit is useful if you want to take your car on a road trip). There is one advantage of having the rads on their own under the bonnet - the pressure drop behind it is lower as you don't have an engine to stop the flow. You get more efficient rad performance. You also don't get as good Charge-air cooling. Normally you want your CAC to be right in the airflow at the front of the car but that would be silly in an MR car as the inertia of all that air mass in the system would make throttle response non-existant. To combat you can have big ducts in the side of the car, which don't see particularly good airflow, or a duct in the roof which again makes your package larger. You do get some dynamic advantages of MR but if you can mount the engine far enough back in an FMR, the differences are marginal. But again, as you said, priorities. Those would be mine. What disadvantages do you mean with FR? Crash performance? doogz said: GroundEffect said: They might have come up with some ingenius solution I've never seen before, but no, the basic architecture is not as good for packaging as a FR layout. That was my point - you choose what parameters you make most important and focus. I would go for FR as its easier to package and then sort out the other stuff after. I think that depends on what you want from a car. The basic architecture, puts the engine near the driven wheels. The cooling issue, is it really an issue? When did anyone last really struggle with this, apart from the odd 458 catching fire? Yeah, you might loose out on storage space, but no-one buys a "proper sports car" because they want a decent sized boot. There's no huge tran tunnel running through the car taking up space inside, and MR affords more traction, generally speaking, than FMR does. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But it seems you are? I'm not saying better, just easier.
|
|
|
kambites
32,864 posts
90 months
|
Static weight distribution, overall weight and polar moment of inertia are the main ones.
I just don't like the way front engined cars drive on the road (although I'd rather have a FM car on a track).
|
|
