|
boxerTen
Original Poster
147 posts
74 months
|
I want a proper modern sports car, not a supercar, nor a sports tourer, just a proper modern sports car with some serious performance. Modern means mid-engined. It should not be heavy. Its engine should have low rotational inertia and good throttle response. For luxury options I would like just two doors and a fixed roof. So:
1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill.
|
|
|
DanDC5
7,024 posts
37 months
|
For everything that you want you need a Lotus Elise with a supercharged K20 engine.
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,674 posts
68 months
|
 just fit a BMW M3 straight 6 in it if that's what you want 
|
|
|
LordHaveMurci
3,158 posts
39 months
|
911 GT3 or am I missing something?
And yes, of course I know they aren't mid engined but rear engined is pretty close.
|
|
|
300bhp/ton
26,725 posts
60 months
|
boxerTen said: I want a proper modern sports car, not a supercar, nor a sports tourer, just a proper modern sports car with some serious performance. Modern means mid-engined. It should not be heavy. Its engine should have low rotational inertia and good throttle response. For luxury options I would like just two doors and a fixed roof. So:
1. Mid-engined.
2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre.
3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here).
4. Two doors and a roof.
Am I being too demanding? It seems so. Or am I alone in a world full of undiscerning autobahn-barge lovers? Only a McLaren F1 fits the bill. You are being a bit unrealistic tbh. Also since when has mid engined been modern??? There is the Elise V6 and Evora which would seem to tick the boxes. A Boxster/Cayman not hugely far off. And even something like a C6 Vette is not a million miles off. How about a Morgan?? Or manybe one of the many small volume and kit car builders? Suspect there's quite a few. GKD Legend, Marlin, Murtaya.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
obscene
3,804 posts
55 months
|
|
|
boxerTen
Original Poster
147 posts
74 months
|
Thanks for the suggestions but they really serve to illuminate how thin the pickings are. My criteria were very generous and were therefore *absolute*. I would hope a decent sports car would comfortably exceed all of them. Certainly it is easy to find rafts of vehicles satisfying any *subset* of them.
So:
911 GT3: too heavy, not mid-engined.
Lotus Evora: too heavy, less than 300bhp.
Lotus Evora S: too heavy, and given its supercharged its rather poor 100bhp/litre is inadequate.
Lotus Exige V6: supercharged, would I notice the difference between it and a naturally aspirated 350bhp 3.5l V6 in terms of throttle response? If yes then fail.
Boxster/Cayman: too heavy.
Corvette C6: too heavy, not mid-engined, less than 90bhp/litre.
Elise with K20 engine transplant: only 4 cylinders, 300bhp but only in supercharged form.
Ultima with BMW 6: tempting but its not a production car, fitting a BMW 6 likely a very bespoke operation (if it'll fit longitudinally), fitting a GT3's boxer 6 may be better?
|
|
|
GravelBen
10,070 posts
100 months
|
boxerTen said: My criteria were very generous and were therefore *absolute*.somewhat arbitrary and perhaps chosen for the lack of cars that fulfill all of them EFA 
|
|
|
The Flying Ox
310 posts
43 months
|
Depends what you mean by modern. Mazda RX7 FD3S kinda fits the bill, if you ignore the piston requirements and the modern bit. You could tart up the inside with some fancy RaceLogic dash stuff I suppose. "Low rotational inertia and good throttle response" as standard. Apart from that: boxerTen said: 1. Mid-engined. They're as near as damnit 50/50, which is what it's all about really. boxerTen said: 2. 6 or more cylinders, naturally aspirated, 300+ bhp, min 90bhp/litre. 0 cylinders, easily 300+bhp, technically 238bhp/litre @ 300bhp, 119bhp/litre @ 300bhp if you're being "but it's really a 2.6L engine" about it. boxerTen said: 3. max 1200kg weight (I'm being very generous here). No you're not. Stock RX7 is 1265kg anyway, and easily sheds a few kgs. boxerTen said: 4. Two doors and a roof. Box: ticked. Includes a useable boot too. And yes I'm biased, but it is one hell of a package when compared to today's crop of "sports" cars.
|
|
|
boxerTen
Original Poster
147 posts
74 months
|
GravelBen said: boxerTen said: My criteria were very generous and were therefore *absolute*.somewhat arbitrary and perhaps chosen for the lack of cars that fulfill all of them EFA Ah well spotted - I confess! (Actually I was going to ask for 16 cylinders, 4 turbos, and 1000bhp but that was obviously too outrageous) But seriously, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Honda ... could take a good 300-350bhp n/a six or eight, plonk it behind the seats in a simple light-weight car and I'd be happy. They don't because there's no profit in it (see Lotus) which means there's precious few of us discerning drivers. On the other hand there is no shortage of people willing to buy the 500bhp and 600bhp saloons and coupes made by every other manufacturer on the planet.
|
|
|
The Flying Ox
310 posts
43 months
|
Ahhh. TVR T350? Pretty sure that ticks all the boxes but Mid-engined.
|
|
|
GravelBen
10,070 posts
100 months
|
boxerTen said: But seriously, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Honda ... could take a good 300-350bhp n/a six or eight, plonk it behind the seats in a simple light-weight car and I'd be happy. Even Lotus don't seem able to meet your weight requirements with modern regs for safety, emissions etc. Ps no issue with that being what you want in a car, but to suggest its the definition of 'a proper sportscar' is way off. Come to think of it, have there ever been many cars that fit that list of requirements? If the answer is no, they haven't gone anywhere.
|
|
|
Gaz.
47,312 posts
121 months
|
I don't understand the 90bhp/litre arguement.
400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp?
|
|
|
Wadeski
5,750 posts
83 months
|
Basically, this is another "modern cars are too heavy" thread.
Otherwise, you would just choose the Cayman, which ticks all the other options.
But modern cars are heavy by the double whammy of consumer preference & legislation, so....i guess you have to man up and buy that Cayman.
|
|
|
SlipStream77
1,648 posts
61 months
|
|
|
SSBB
507 posts
26 months
|
So what are all the non-modern cars that fit this criteria?
|
|
|
PanzerCommander
2,733 posts
88 months
|
Gaz. said: I don't understand the 90bhp/litre arguement.
400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp? This, same with the mid engined argument, does it really matter if the car is well balanced?
|
|
|
900T-R
18,683 posts
127 months
|
Gaz. said: I don't understand the 90bhp/litre arguement.
400hp handsomely trumps 300bhp so who cares if the engine that makes it is 6 litres instead of 3.4 litres making little more than 300hp? Exactly. Seems like people often confuse the overall size of an engine with how big the holes in it are. On a similar note, many of the cars mentioned are mid engined even though driver & passenger are not in front of it.
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,950 posts
74 months
|
Caterham R500
Not a proper sportscar
|
|
|
Pinky and Perky
1,163 posts
125 months
|
SSBB said: So what are all the non-modern cars that fit this criteria? What he said.
|
|
