RE: Porsche Carrera GT: Spotted
Discussion
soad said:
Is it true that they were thinking of using a turbocharged flat-6 engine?
Initially, that is.
In the CGT you mean or the 918?Initially, that is.
In the Carrera GT the engine came first. The V10 was developed for sportscar racing and then legislated out of being able to compete. Porsche then decided to develop a limited run road car using the engine. One of the reasons why the V10 in these is just so epic is it's pure motorsports roots.
Adz The Rat said:
...That clutch is very tricky when setting off though, never tried the no throttle trick...
"The no throttle trick" is discussed and demonstrated in Evo's rather excellent McLaren F1 and Ferrari F40 vs analogue supercar rivals vid (@ 09:12):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpCbZaD8xc
NGK210 said:
"The no throttle trick" is discussed and demonstrated in Evo's rather excellent McLaren F1 and Ferrari F40 vs analogue supercar rivals vid (@ 09:12):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpCbZaD8xc
Honestly I do not get the aggro that people keep on about for the cgt clutch. It is not very intuitive initially as one gets conditioned to applying some throttle moving off from a standstill but once you get your head around that, it really is very easy indeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpCbZaD8xc
ZesPak said:
Sorry, this wouldn't get it over the LFA for me.
I like the look of them, but I fail to see the added appeal over the SLR tbh.
Manual gearbox.I like the look of them, but I fail to see the added appeal over the SLR tbh.
Mid engined balance.
N/A engine.
Exhaust note
Carbon Chassis
400Kg lighter
The SLR is the car of this type that I find the least appealing (other than the Stirling Moss). I do like the LFA, and the engine is a peach, but it still can't hold a candle to the CGT IMHO.
Edited by SWoll on Tuesday 17th September 16:32
SWoll said:
Manual gearbox.
Mid engined balance.
N/A engine.
Exhaust note
Carbon Chassis
400Kg lighter
The SLR is the car of this type that I find the least appealing (other than the Stirling Moss). I do like the LFA, and the engine is a peach, but it still can't hold a candle to the CGT IMHO.
The SLR is a front mid layout. The CGT is a rear mid. The end result is the same, weight distributed equally and between both axels. Mid engined balance.
N/A engine.
Exhaust note
Carbon Chassis
400Kg lighter
The SLR is the car of this type that I find the least appealing (other than the Stirling Moss). I do like the LFA, and the engine is a peach, but it still can't hold a candle to the CGT IMHO.
Edited by SWoll on Tuesday 17th September 16:32
The SLR is mostly carbon.
The S/C engine has more torque and at least as much power
I'll give you the 'box
and the weight.
But I'll raise you the looks.
I am not sure I agree that we will never see analogue cars again, I expect things will move on and we will have something like them again. There was a time in the 80s and in to 90s when anything quick had a turbo, then it moved back to NA cars. If electric finally takes over then we might go full circle or a new NA might come around.....direct injection was a leap forward. Who knows but never say never.
Flemke's CGT has had some use and my friend has put some miles on it.
Flemke's CGT has had some use and my friend has put some miles on it.
PHMatt said:
SWoll said:
Manual gearbox.
Mid engined balance.
N/A engine.
Exhaust note
Carbon Chassis
400Kg lighter
The SLR is the car of this type that I find the least appealing (other than the Stirling Moss). I do like the LFA, and the engine is a peach, but it still can't hold a candle to the CGT IMHO.
The SLR is a front mid layout. The CGT is a rear mid. The end result is the same, weight distributed equally and between both axels. Mid engined balance.
N/A engine.
Exhaust note
Carbon Chassis
400Kg lighter
The SLR is the car of this type that I find the least appealing (other than the Stirling Moss). I do like the LFA, and the engine is a peach, but it still can't hold a candle to the CGT IMHO.
Edited by SWoll on Tuesday 17th September 16:32
The SLR is mostly carbon.
The S/C engine has more torque and at least as much power
I'll give you the 'box
and the weight.
But I'll raise you the looks.
With regards to the utterly subjective topic of the looks, I think the CGT is a far superior and will look just as good in 20 years time as it does now. Not so sure about the SLR, I've always thought it looked a bit overdone in some areas (nose, front wings, wheels) and underdone in others (rear end, interior). I just don't find it a particularly attractive or cohesive piece of design.
I notice you didn't comment on the exhaust note. The SLR has a lovely bassy rumble but the CGT is in another league entirely.
Definitely one for the "collection", preferably in Yellow. Only critism is the 996 steering wheel, looks a bit.....low rent in comparison to the rest of the car.
A relative bargain considering it competes in the upper echelon of the supercar world.
For me it's more of an attainable dream car than a McL F1 because it is 'just' a few hundred grand but somehow it seems far more exotic than that price even.
Wouldn't be a surprise to see them up at £1M at some point.
For me it's more of an attainable dream car than a McL F1 because it is 'just' a few hundred grand but somehow it seems far more exotic than that price even.
Wouldn't be a surprise to see them up at £1M at some point.
Caddyshack said:
I am not sure I agree that we will never see analogue cars again, I expect things will move on and we will have something like them again. There was a time in the 80s and in to 90s when anything quick had a turbo, then it moved back to NA cars. If electric finally takes over then we might go full circle or a new NA might come around.....direct injection was a leap forward. Who knows but never say never.
Flemke's CGT has had some use and my friend has put some miles on it.
Not until manufacturers are willing or indeed able to step away from the never ending laptime war will an analogue supercar be able to reappear and the way things are going it seems they are firmly of the belief (and probably rightly so) the vast majority of customers are never going to accept buying a slower car even if it might well be more fun to drive...Flemke's CGT has had some use and my friend has put some miles on it.
PHMatt said:
The SLR is a front mid layout. The CGT is a rear mid. The end result is the same, weight distributed equally and between both axels.
The SLR is mostly carbon.
The S/C engine has more torque and at least as much power
I'll give you the 'box
and the weight.
But I'll raise you the looks.
Entitled to your opinion Matt even if you're wrong The SLR is mostly carbon.
The S/C engine has more torque and at least as much power
I'll give you the 'box
and the weight.
But I'll raise you the looks.
CGT much better looking, the carbon chassis is thing of beauty as are the laid down inboard shocks.
The engine note of the Porsche is a genuine contender for the best ever, its a far far more charismatic engine then the Merc. Its got a proper gearbox and is not a lard arse.
SLR I think is one of the more disappointing cars of the last 10 years and way too similar to the ordinary AMG SLs, maybe even less special than the pumped up, in house and loads cheaper Black Series
I seem to recall Ralph Lauren saying in an interview back then that he wasn't all that interested in the Enzo, but couldn't wait to get his CGT
Then shortly afterwards I saw Tommy Hilfiger on TV picking up his new Enzo, with the dealer telling him "Even Ralph Lauren doesn't have one of these!"
I'd quite like the other Carrera GT that Porsche made too
Then shortly afterwards I saw Tommy Hilfiger on TV picking up his new Enzo, with the dealer telling him "Even Ralph Lauren doesn't have one of these!"
I'd quite like the other Carrera GT that Porsche made too
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff