|
robmlufc
2,744 posts
55 months
|
Plenty of good sports cars out there.
I would suggest driving some of them?
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,418 posts
143 months
|
boxerTen said: Elise with K20 engine transplant: only 4 cylinders, 300bhp but only in supercharged form. so what? it's still capable of 350-400hp an a car under 800Kg's... or is actual performance not important to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq_WbFBwBrE
|
|
|
Dusty964
5,459 posts
59 months
|
It would appear that you need to road register a group 5 Lancia Stratos.
|
|
|
doogz
18,721 posts
56 months
|
 A 300bhp supercharged K20 Elise isn't a "proper sports car" because it only has 4 cylinders? Funny guy.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,843 posts
105 months
|
Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster.
Outside of the hardcore ultra sports cars such as Caterfields, a *proper* sports car should also be a competent GT car. The market segment has always been "Sports/GT". This is why Porsche have sold so many Boxsters, Caymens and 911s because they have made their products tick the bases superbly.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
so called
3,510 posts
78 months
|
Not sure why you ask for a mid-engine.
Thats not particularly traditional in a sports car.
I would have loved to have pointed you at the last range of TVR's that were being produced (Sagaris, Tuscan Mk2, Tuscan Convertible, T350 and Tamora) but alas no more.
|
|
|
Bill
26,508 posts
124 months
|
Wadeski said: 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.  and a +1 to all the other comments pointing out how bizarrely fickle the OP's requirements are. The only requirement missing is an unrealistic price...
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,214 posts
25 months
|
The OP's requirements scream Lotus Evora.
|
|
|
900T-R
18,560 posts
126 months
|
so called said: Not sure why you ask for a mid-engine.
Thats not particularly traditional in a sports car.
I would have loved to have pointed you at the last range of TVR's that were being produced (Sagaris, Tuscan Mk2, Tuscan Convertible, T350 and Tamora) but alas no more. All of them fulfil the OP's requirement of being mid-engined, anyway - although he probably meant rear-mid engined. 
|
|
|
Bill
26,508 posts
124 months
|
And the weight requirement in a modern car that meets all regulations means lightweight materials with a price tag to match. And that means a superior...
|
|
|
doogz
18,721 posts
56 months
|
DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster. Explain please? Is it just because they have some sort of boot?
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,418 posts
143 months
|
doogz said: DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster. Explain please? Is it just because they have some sort of boot? and let's face it, all the recent Ferrari's/Lambo's/etc are crap cause they are mid-engined...
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
The Flying Ox said: 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. 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
|
|
|
Zoobeef
1,313 posts
27 months
|
SlipStream77 said: Noble? This, how as a petrol head have you not considered it looking at your list
|
|
|
smartypants
17,422 posts
38 months
|
DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster.
Outside of the hardcore ultra sports cars such as Caterfields, a *proper* sports car should also be a competent GT car. The market segment has always been "Sports/GT". This is why Porsche have sold so many Boxsters, Caymens and 911s because they have made their products tick the bases superbly. This. It really has to be front-mid-engined And why does your car criteria have to be so heavy and powerful. Go light and you then get much more towards a proper sports car
|
|
|
GroundEffect
7,214 posts
25 months
|
doogz said: DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster. Explain please? Is it just because they have some sort of boot? They are more difficult to package the powerpack, particularly cooling.
|
|
|
Bill
26,508 posts
124 months
|
GroundEffect said: They are more difficult to package the powerpack, particularly cooling. Which rules out the MGF 
|
|
|
doogz
18,721 posts
56 months
|
GroundEffect said: doogz said: DJRC said: Mid engined is actually quite naff for packaging in a roadcar. Only 2 of them really have managed it very well...the MGF and the Boxster. Explain please? Is it just because they have some sort of boot? They are more difficult to package the powerpack, particularly cooling. So no other mid engined cars actually work, other than the 2 mentioned above? I get the feeling that's not the point he was making anyway.
|
|
|
braddo
2,992 posts
57 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. Your criteria describe an Exige V6 almost exactly....  Or a Cayman R? You don't want a supercar but then say only the McLaren F1 fits the bill?
|
|
|
marcosgt
6,202 posts
45 months
|
Sounds like you're trying to find a car which can't be made any more. Emission and Collision rules mean a super lightweight, n/a car isn't possible these days. That said, you're being overly pedantic - 1200Kg? 300+ BHP? - So an 800Kg/270 BHP car wouldn't be any good? Another question MIGHT be "What are all these proper sports car you speak of?" - I can't think of anything EVER made by a major manufacturer that fits all your criteria - Even things like TVRs/Marcoses were front engined so not 'modern' sportscars M
|
|
