Not a bad job.....
Discussion
Andy 308GTB said:
As per the title of the thread - that's not a bad job.
The interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
pThe interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
s off, EVO timed the MR2 at 7.2...Fantuzzi said:
Andy 308GTB said:
As per the title of the thread - that's not a bad job.
The interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
pThe interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
s off, EVO timed the MR2 at 7.2...Plus with all the extra weight of the bodykit on it, sounds entirely plausible!
The real pity is the amount of work that has gone into this for such a small return, obviously huge losses.
I actually like it. We often forget that many people afford the cars we take for granted so the only option is a copy. Similar to those who buy a fake watch.
Ive actually owned a couple of 360's and let me tell you all, the build of the car wasn't the best in terms of the panels lining up although when I crashed the first one it held together nicely (well, the cockpit did).
I can appreciate this for what it is.
I actually like it. We often forget that many people afford the cars we take for granted so the only option is a copy. Similar to those who buy a fake watch.
Ive actually owned a couple of 360's and let me tell you all, the build of the car wasn't the best in terms of the panels lining up although when I crashed the first one it held together nicely (well, the cockpit did).
I can appreciate this for what it is.
A lot of effort indeed for very little return. From some angles it looks ok, from others it looks dreadful with the frontal aspect being the only convincing one to a casual observer. The pic from the rear is great, looking like a little car emerging from the interior of one far larger, too funny! IF that's a genuine CS grill, I'd take that for a few hundred quid.
I've never been one for replicas so for me the choice would've been a pretend 360 or a nice genuine 911. Only one winner there.
I've never been one for replicas so for me the choice would've been a pretend 360 or a nice genuine 911. Only one winner there.
ZeusF said:
The real pity is the amount of work that has gone into this for such a small return, obviously huge losses.
I actually like it. We often forget that many people afford the cars we take for granted so the only option is a copy. Similar to those who buy a fake watch.
....
I can appreciate this for what it is.
This^^I actually like it. We often forget that many people afford the cars we take for granted so the only option is a copy. Similar to those who buy a fake watch.
....
I can appreciate this for what it is.
Kyodo said:
I've never been one for replicas so for me the choice would've been a pretend 360 or a nice genuine 911. Only one winner there.
And especially this^^. Although that said I'd have no problem with buying say a Dax etc recreation of a Cobra, so I'm probably a bit of a hypocrite.... Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 28th June 22:26
bertie said:
Fantuzzi said:
Andy 308GTB said:
As per the title of the thread - that's not a bad job.
The interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
pThe interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
s off, EVO timed the MR2 at 7.2...Plus with all the extra weight of the bodykit on it, sounds entirely plausible!
Fantuzzi said:
bertie said:
Fantuzzi said:
Andy 308GTB said:
As per the title of the thread - that's not a bad job.
The interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
pThe interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
s off, EVO timed the MR2 at 7.2...Plus with all the extra weight of the bodykit on it, sounds entirely plausible!
Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60, where 0.3s makes a difference, but doubt anyone could tell the difference between 7.2 and 7.5.
Fantuzzi said:
bertie said:
Fantuzzi said:
Andy 308GTB said:
As per the title of the thread - that's not a bad job.
The interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
pThe interiors are normally loads worse than that.
The photos will obviously be taken from the most flattering angles, so in the flesh it might not look quite so convincing.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds - now that could be embarrassing.
s off, EVO timed the MR2 at 7.2...Plus with all the extra weight of the bodykit on it, sounds entirely plausible!
Either way, a 138 bhp gruff 4 banger is always going to feel and sound a bit lame when it should have a 400bhp V8 in it!
SteelySteve said:
I reckon Ferrari must have produced 50,000 Challenge Stradale badges, and only 1200 Challenge Stradale's! Upsets me when I see one on a 360, let alone this abomination!
Very true!I'd run a CS grill on our Modena but I'd never want the badge on it. The grill is functional but for me the badge should always be left for the real deal.
EpsomJames said:
I thought you were being ironic, but you were actually arguing 0.3s on a post 7s 0-60 car.
Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60, where 0.3s makes a difference, but doubt anyone could tell the difference between 7.2 and 7.5.
I was joking! Hence the '...' Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60, where 0.3s makes a difference, but doubt anyone could tell the difference between 7.2 and 7.5.
I just was surprised bertie said the car felt 'no where near' that sort of speed, as most people find them rather swift although by no means is it a 'fast' sports car. Hence my second post. I am quite aware .3 of a second in a 0-60 is purely academic!
You might need to change the batteries in your irony detector.
bertie said:
Maybe I wasn't ragging it's nuts off enough, it's not an engine that seems to enjoy revs, it wasn't a sweet revver, but that's maybe what it needs to deliver.
Either way, a 138 bhp gruff 4 banger is always going to feel and sound a bit lame when it should have a 400bhp V8 in it!
Yeah it needs some revs to start feeling quick, so you have to be fairly enthusiastic, but, hey that's the fun!Either way, a 138 bhp gruff 4 banger is always going to feel and sound a bit lame when it should have a 400bhp V8 in it!
Shame the car didn't have an engine to match the chassis like you said.
Must be rather a disappointment for people when the rep passes by!
EpsomJames said:
Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60...
Somehow I doubt that. And even if it were true it has no bearing on the value of anyone's contributions. Back on topic, that actually looks ok from the outside (apart from the wheels / arches), but I am left asking the same question as always when it comes to replicas: WHY?
Steve12NG said:
EpsomJames said:
Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60...
Somehow I doubt that. And even if it were true it has no bearing on the value of anyone's contributions. Back on topic, that actually looks ok from the outside (apart from the wheels / arches), but I am left asking the same question as always when it comes to replicas: WHY?
WHY? Because people believe (I put believe here as more often the case the build costs don't often stack up) that they can build one for a fraction of the price of a real one and it will fool >90% of the public (ok so probably 0% on PH) into thinking it's the real deal.
Fantuzzi said:
EpsomJames said:
I thought you were being ironic, but you were actually arguing 0.3s on a post 7s 0-60 car.
Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60, where 0.3s makes a difference, but doubt anyone could tell the difference between 7.2 and 7.5.
I was joking! Hence the '...' Remember most posters on this sub forum have cars that accelerate sub 4 seconds 0-60, where 0.3s makes a difference, but doubt anyone could tell the difference between 7.2 and 7.5.
I just was surprised bertie said the car felt 'no where near' that sort of speed, as most people find them rather swift although by no means is it a 'fast' sports car. Hence my second post. I am quite aware .3 of a second in a 0-60 is purely academic!
You might need to change the batteries in your irony detector.
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff