RE: Toyota V6 for Elise?
Discussion
smeagol said:
It is the Apple Macintosh of sports cars.
What it's faster, more reliable and better than the other cars?
What a terrible analogy, Apple Mactintoshes are good computers. I use a PC because of my work (ie my customers use PCs) In fact if it wasn't for the problems people have with PCs I wouldn't have much of a job
I think you're falling into the trap that a sports car must be unreliable, not true. Not everybody wants a car thats out and out power or a "race car for the road" they want a sports car which is comfortable, reliable, looks good and quick. The boxter is all of these things, a cracking car all round.
>> Edited by smeagol on Tuesday 3rd December 11:42
Macs have only rarely in their history been faster than PCs, they've never been more reliable and the only criteria by which they can be judged "better" are extremely subjective.
That being said, I don't think they're "bad" computers any more than I think the Boxter is a "bad" car. Interesting that you took my comparison as a slight. It wasn't.
The Boxter is very much like a Mac. It is somewhat more expensive than other cars of comparable performance but those who prefer what they percieve as the "user friendliness" are willing to pay the extra money. Then they try to prove to all concerned that their car/computer is better than X perhaps because they feel subliminally guilty that they spent the extra money. Who cares? If they want to spend the money, they should do so. Mostly what it comes down to in the end is badge snobbery.
But they shouldn't just say the Porsche is "better", they should say exactly why they think it is better.
For the same price, a TVR Tamora will eat even the Boxter S's lunch in terms of performance (and practicality - compare boot space).
If the goal is build quality, and engine technology, nothing beats a Honda S2000 and performance slightly superior to the basic Boxter can be had for about four grand less.
But for top-down fun, if you're willing to give up a couple of seconds on the 0-60, a Mazda MX5 can be had for a little more than half the price of the low-end Boxter.
JonGwynne said:
*Must* be unreliable? Of course not. However, No car is perfect (not even Porsches or Hondas). The questions isn't whether or not you'll settle for "quirks" but how many and what sort.
I'm not saying the Boxter is a bad car. It obviously isn't. But it isn't a true sports car. It is a car for people who want to appear to be driving a sports car but don't want the challenge of actually doing it.
There is a good reason why true sports cars lack things like ABS, traction-control and things of that nature. People who don't understand (or agree with) them should stick to driving things like Boxters, Z3s and Mazda MX5s.
Sorry mate thats utter b*ll*cks. Sports cars aren't designed to be hard to drive, they are designed to be quick.
You are confusing sports car with racing car. A racing car is designed for the track, where speed is everything, stuff comfort, stuff reliability (to a point) and get me round the track as quickly as possible,
A sports car is designed for the road, is quick, but also must cope with roads that are not designed to be tracks. ie lots of stop starts, speed humps, excessively tight bends, no run offs etc.
I personally wouldn't by an MX5, Z3, or Boxter because I like my cars rougher, but saying that they are not true sports cars is like saying a club racer isn't really a racing driver because they're not in formula 1.
When I chose my sports car I rejected the Elise based on its roof and luggage space. For the job I was doing at the time it was useless. I bought an M100 Elan (are you saying its not a true sports car) it was practical (shock horror) FWD, had a roof that worked and didn't need two days notice to put up, and a boot. Tell you what though, put the Elan against the porche, S2000, and various other exotica on a twisty country road and the M100 would be the quickest. (it even gives the Elise a good run for its money and in poor conditions beats it)
Now according to your views I didn't buy a true sports car. IMO I did, the Boxter is in the same category, you buy a boxter because you want a performance car you can use everyday without it having problems and enjoy the thrill of the drive.
Finally its the task of all sports cars to actually make it as easy as possible to travel fast. Race cars equally are set so that the drive is the easiest not so you have to cope with oversteer and understeer on each corner. It may not be to your "Fun factor" or taste but that is the simple fact of the matter, remember squeal = slow.
Before you start making judgements of what a "real" sports car is I think you better actually go through what criteria you are using. So far you seem to equate discomfort, and a challenge as the criteria both of which aren't a requirement. If it was why not sit a large spike on the seat and change the wheel alignment. Actually don't bother there are several normal cars out there that can give you that "thrill".
JonGwynne said: Macs have only rarely in their history been faster than PCs, they've never been more reliable and the only criteria by which they can be judged "better" are extremely subjective.
So why is it considered the best in publishing/design circles. Faster isn't the Mhz on the paper its how fast it performs certain jobs. The Apple mac is supreme in certain areas. The PC is a Jack of all trades computer. Reliability, I suspect you've never been with a lab of macs before, the lab I knew in one school rarely had any problems, the PC lab on the other hand.... PCs due to their nature are less reliable due to the fact there are various different standards of Hardware and Software which is constantly changing. Apple Mac on the other hand has always made it so upgrades, software installation etc. is easy. PCs are only just trying to catch up with "plug and play" or "install and use" and to be honest are still not there. Being hard to install means mistakes can be made leading to poor reliability.
That being said, I don't think they're "bad" computers any more than I think the Boxter is a "bad" car. Interesting that you took my comparison as a slight. It wasn't.
The Boxter is very much like a Mac. It is somewhat more expensive than other cars of comparable performance but those who prefer what they percieve as the "user friendliness" are willing to pay the extra money. Then they try to prove to all concerned that their car/computer is better than X perhaps because they feel subliminally guilty that they spent the extra money. Who cares? If they want to spend the money, they should do so. Mostly what it comes down to in the end is badge snobbery.
Don't agree most time people buy Macs because they are better than others at certain jobs (DTP for example). The only reason people buy PCs is for compatibility (which is laughable sometimes) ie everybody else has PCs so we'd better get them.
But they shouldn't just say the Porsche is "better", they should say exactly why they think it is better.
For the same price, a TVR Tamora will eat even the Boxter S's lunch in terms of performance (and practicality - compare boot space).
If the goal is build quality, and engine technology, nothing beats a Honda S2000 and performance slightly superior to the basic Boxter can be had for about four grand less.
But for top-down fun, if you're willing to give up a couple of seconds on the 0-60, a Mazda MX5 can be had for a little more than half the price of the low-end Boxter.
True but what makes you say its not a true sports car? The analogy you used was that effectively that the Apple MAC wasn't a "true computer". People are prepared to pay that much more, so what, its still a good sports car. And as for the badge don't forget the Vaxhual VX220 (how many werern't bought because it said Vauxhaul on the front?) instead of the Elise does that make all Elise drivers elitists (I think not)
northernboy said: What a load of crap about macs. PCs have always had conflicts between different pieces of software and hardware, macs have alwyas been ultra reliable.
Now that they are Unix based, macs are close to perfection.
Well, although this is quite a bit off topic for the forum I will chime in...
I have been a user of PCs and Sun Microsystems unix machines for my entire life, and recently bought a dual 1GHz G4 PowerMac. I couldn't be happier. The machine has yet to crash in the 9 months I've had it, the GUI in OS X is beautiful, the support given to developers by Apple is superb, etc... Nothing I could possibly complain about.
smeagol said:
JonGwynne said:
*Must* be unreliable? Of course not. However, No car is perfect (not even Porsches or Hondas). The questions isn't whether or not you'll settle for "quirks" but how many and what sort.
I'm not saying the Boxter is a bad car. It obviously isn't. But it isn't a true sports car. It is a car for people who want to appear to be driving a sports car but don't want the challenge of actually doing it.
There is a good reason why true sports cars lack things like ABS, traction-control and things of that nature. People who don't understand (or agree with) them should stick to driving things like Boxters, Z3s and Mazda MX5s.
Sorry mate thats utter b*ll*cks. Sports cars aren't designed to be hard to drive, they are designed to be quick.
You are confusing sports car with racing car. A racing car is designed for the track, where speed is everything, stuff comfort, stuff reliability (to a point) and get me round the track as quickly as possible,
A sports car is designed for the road, is quick, but also must cope with roads that are not designed to be tracks. ie lots of stop starts, speed humps, excessively tight bends, no run offs etc.
I personally wouldn't by an MX5, Z3, or Boxter because I like my cars rougher, but saying that they are not true sports cars is like saying a club racer isn't really a racing driver because they're not in formula 1.
When I chose my sports car I rejected the Elise based on its roof and luggage space. For the job I was doing at the time it was useless. I bought an M100 Elan (are you saying its not a true sports car) it was practical (shock horror) FWD, had a roof that worked and didn't need two days notice to put up, and a boot. Tell you what though, put the Elan against the porche, S2000, and various other exotica on a twisty country road and the M100 would be the quickest. (it even gives the Elise a good run for its money and in poor conditions beats it)
Now according to your views I didn't buy a true sports car. IMO I did, the Boxter is in the same category, you buy a boxter because you want a performance car you can use everyday without it having problems and enjoy the thrill of the drive.
Finally its the task of all sports cars to actually make it as easy as possible to travel fast. Race cars equally are set so that the drive is the easiest not so you have to cope with oversteer and understeer on each corner. It may not be to your "Fun factor" or taste but that is the simple fact of the matter, remember squeal = slow.
Before you start making judgements of what a "real" sports car is I think you better actually go through what criteria you are using. So far you seem to equate discomfort, and a challenge as the criteria both of which aren't a requirement. If it was why not sit a large spike on the seat and change the wheel alignment. Actually don't bother there are several normal cars out there that can give you that "thrill".
I disagree. I think the Elan M100 is a fine sports car and for many people would be a better choice than an Elise due to practicality issues. Some people turn up their nose because of the Isuzu engine or because it has FWD but who cares?
I never said sports cars had to be hard to drive - just uncompromized.
northernboy said: What a load of crap about macs. PCs have always had conflicts between different pieces of software and hardware, macs have alwyas been ultra reliable.
Now that they are Unix based, macs are close to perfection.
Macs? Ultra-reliable? Pull the other one. I've been working with Macs since the mid 80s while working with PCs as well, and I've never once once noticed that they're more reliable than a PC doing the same job. I used to work for a Mac dealer in southern California and the machines would crash like clockwork. Plus, unlike PCs, they were quite tricky to deal with when recovering from these faults.
Apple's marketing is pretty good about convincing people that PCs suck but that doesn't mean anyone should believe them. What else are they going to say?
The Ford GTO had a V8 from no exotic origin. The Tomasso Pantera was actually appealing because of its “standard” engine. The engine should fit the purpose of supplying power and torque. Personally, I wouldn’t mind a DIESEL (!) engine in the Elise if it generates 250 hp with good low-mid rev torque and does not affect the road holding. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t mind if they built one that has two electrical motors of 150 KW each (I am not sure though if I would want to drive over railroad track though). I guess this connects the discussion on PC’s and Elise?
JonGywnne wrote:
"BTW, the Boxter isn't really a true "mid-engine" car because the engine isn't at the car's COG..."
Sorry mate you are wrong.
Mid-engined means the engine is between the driver and rear wheels, not necessarily at the CofG.
Some front engined cars have engines close to the CofG but are always "front" engined because the engine is in front of the driver, not the ridiculous "front mid-engined" nomenclature that some manufacturers use.
So by the correct definition of the expression the Boxster IS mid-engined....however, I can't imagine the engine is that far from the CofG either....
"BTW, the Boxter isn't really a true "mid-engine" car because the engine isn't at the car's COG..."
Sorry mate you are wrong.
Mid-engined means the engine is between the driver and rear wheels, not necessarily at the CofG.
Some front engined cars have engines close to the CofG but are always "front" engined because the engine is in front of the driver, not the ridiculous "front mid-engined" nomenclature that some manufacturers use.
So by the correct definition of the expression the Boxster IS mid-engined....however, I can't imagine the engine is that far from the CofG either....
1. Only 4 grand cheaper? You mean a stripped out 2.7?
2. It is a Honda, not a Porsche? Spoken like a true badge snob. Give me a break.
3. Doesn't hold its value? Check the ads, I see cars with several thousand miles on the clock going for nearly full retail.
4. Doesn't hold the road? It does fine. It is no Elise, but then neither is the Boxter.
5. No torque? Give the gearing of the rear end, it does just fine.
6. Less of an "experience"? Spare me. I've driven a Boxter. It is the Apple Macintosh of sports cars. A car for people who (like the ones who buy Z3s) don't really want a sports car but prefer something that just looks like one. You want an "experience", take the price of the 3.2L Boxter and go shopping at your TVR dealer. Or take the ten grand you'd save buying an Elise and have the Lotus modded.
BTW, the Boxter isn't really a true "mid-engine" car because the engine isn't at the car's COG. It is slightly to the rear. In the Honda, it is slightly to the front. The effect on the polar moment of intertia is essentially the same.
1) A 'basic' 2.7 is about 4k extra, add in lthr seats if you want them to equalise the spec and its 5k more.
2) Not a badge snob but Porsche and Honda are poles apart to the average punter
3) s2000 holds its value well just not as well as a Boxster, you will see nearly new ones above RRP come spring and even as a 5yr old car they have only shed 20% of new price.
4) Boxster is universally acknowledged as one of the best handling sportscars of all time. S2000 until facelift and geo changes was not, even Autocar wrote off their test car, which is pretty unusual.
5)Sorry it has torque (about as much as a Nissan Micra) but at 9,000RPM
6) I mean its more of an experience to most on the basis of it being mid engined, has a beautiful flat six engine note, is massively capable, built to perfection and is the entry level car to a real sports car marque.
As before I like the S2000, but my friend whom has had 2 dreams of owning a Boxster one day.
Bennno
On the macs versus PC debate, I have never had a memory leak on a mac, never had ANY conflict, have been able to plug and play for years, and so on.
On PCs, I get freezes, crashes, memory leaks, and conflicts galore. The macs in my last place would run for a year or more with no problems. I've yet to find a PC that doesn't tie itself in knots after a couple of weeks.
I used macs when I was in academia, and performance mattered, I use PCs at work, and I really really hate them.
If you have a decent mac, you can simulate a pentium for any situations where there is no mac solution, but so far, I've never needed to.
Since these things need to sit in my house, I also refuse to have a crappy looking box. My mac is not Titanium coloured, or Titanium effect, it's Titanium. G
On PCs, I get freezes, crashes, memory leaks, and conflicts galore. The macs in my last place would run for a year or more with no problems. I've yet to find a PC that doesn't tie itself in knots after a couple of weeks.
I used macs when I was in academia, and performance mattered, I use PCs at work, and I really really hate them.
If you have a decent mac, you can simulate a pentium for any situations where there is no mac solution, but so far, I've never needed to.
Since these things need to sit in my house, I also refuse to have a crappy looking box. My mac is not Titanium coloured, or Titanium effect, it's Titanium. G
I have to say, I think you guys are all missing an obvious call, here. The Mazda rotary - in non-turbo form - would be a much better idea than any of your suggestions, for a lot of obvious reasons: weight, size, tune-ability, etc. Definitely more 'Lotus' in philosophy, as well. As for the S2000 v. Boxter question, I'd prefer the rear-weight bias of the Porsche, but, really - which one do you think is going to be more reliable, if you actually drove it for, say, 150K miles? Give me a break; Porsche reliability is crap, compared to Honda - there's really no comparison.
meerkat said: JonGywnne wrote:
"BTW, the Boxter isn't really a true "mid-engine" car because the engine isn't at the car's COG..."
Sorry mate you are wrong.
Mid-engined means the engine is between the driver and rear wheels, not necessarily at the CofG.
Some front engined cars have engines close to the CofG but are always "front" engined because the engine is in front of the driver, not the ridiculous "front mid-engined" nomenclature that some manufacturers use.
So by the correct definition of the expression the Boxster IS mid-engined....however, I can't imagine the engine is that far from the CofG either....
The engine in the S2000 isn't that far from the CoG either. At the end of the day "mid-engine" is a misnomer. It implies the engine is in the middle of the car which it plainly is not. The reason people usually bring up "mid engine" is in connection with handling. One of the best ways to help handling is put the main masses of the car as close to the CoG as possible.
Since it isn't possible to put the engine directly between the driver and passenger seat, everything else is a compromise. Whether you compromise by moving the engine slightly forward or slightly backward makes little difference in the larger picture.
bennno said:
1. Only 4 grand cheaper? You mean a stripped out 2.7?
2. It is a Honda, not a Porsche? Spoken like a true badge snob. Give me a break.
3. Doesn't hold its value? Check the ads, I see cars with several thousand miles on the clock going for nearly full retail.
4. Doesn't hold the road? It does fine. It is no Elise, but then neither is the Boxter.
5. No torque? Give the gearing of the rear end, it does just fine.
6. Less of an "experience"? Spare me. I've driven a Boxter. It is the Apple Macintosh of sports cars. A car for people who (like the ones who buy Z3s) don't really want a sports car but prefer something that just looks like one. You want an "experience", take the price of the 3.2L Boxter and go shopping at your TVR dealer. Or take the ten grand you'd save buying an Elise and have the Lotus modded.
BTW, the Boxter isn't really a true "mid-engine" car because the engine isn't at the car's COG. It is slightly to the rear. In the Honda, it is slightly to the front. The effect on the polar moment of intertia is essentially the same.
1) A 'basic' 2.7 is about 4k extra, add in lthr seats if you want them to equalise the spec and its 5k more.
2) Not a badge snob but Porsche and Honda are poles apart to the average punter
3) s2000 holds its value well just not as well as a Boxster, you will see nearly new ones above RRP come spring and even as a 5yr old car they have only shed 20% of new price.
4) Boxster is universally acknowledged as one of the best handling sportscars of all time. S2000 until facelift and geo changes was not, even Autocar wrote off their test car, which is pretty unusual.
5)Sorry it has torque (about as much as a Nissan Micra) but at 9,000RPM
6) I mean its more of an experience to most on the basis of it being mid engined, has a beautiful flat six engine note, is massively capable, built to perfection and is the entry level car to a real sports car marque.
As before I like the S2000, but my friend whom has had 2 dreams of owning a Boxster one day.
Bennno
1. Fair enough.
2. Any way you cut it, that's still badge snobbery. Honda makes cars that are every bit the equal of Porsche in terms of objective criteria like build quality and reliability. To say they are "poles apart" is to really say German cars are better than Japanese ones.
3. Depreciation isn't really a measure of anything except the ratio of supply to demand. Any time there are more people trying to buy something than there are those things for sale, the price will go up.
4. Best handling cars of all time? Give me a break. Good, yes. But not great. Any alleged "greatness" has to do with Porsche's reliance on electronic nannying. One of the best handling Porsche of all time? that I'll instantly grant you. But compared to the best of Britain and Italy, the Boxter wouldn't dare show its head against them.
5. Torque? The Boxter may have more at the flywheel but that isn't the whole story. The gearing of the S2000's rear end more than compensates for its lack of low-end grunt.
6. The S2000's engine is as close to its CoG as the Boxters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see that the Honda is better balanced since the gearbox is near the center of the car. This whole "mid engine" thing is a marketing angle. There's more to building a great handling car (or even just a well-balanced one) than putting the engine behind the passenger compartment.
All you need to make the engine close to or on the centre or gravity is for the rest of the car to be light and the engine to be heavy. Clearly Cof G is not the whole story. You have to factor in polar moment of inertia, which is basically the distribution of the mass from the C of G along the axis of the car, and the center of grip, which ideally ought to be close to the C of G also.
While both the S2000 and the boxster may have the engine close to the C of G, because the engines are at the ends of the car, the polar moment of inertia is higher, and the C of G is away from the Centre of Grip
(the stationary Centre of Grip would be the point in the car that you could attach a rope and pull the car in any direction without the car rotating. Therefore it is dependant on the tyres, and the weight distribution on the tyres. Clearly the centre of grip moves around the car in a dynamic situation)
That is why the best solution for a sports car will always be a mid engined car, (ferrari, lambougini, mclaren, saleen, koenigsegg) and why the elise is better than the boxster or the S2000.
By mid dengined I mean that the engine is in front of the rear wheels.
>> Edited by englishman in LA on Wednesday 4th December 16:01
While both the S2000 and the boxster may have the engine close to the C of G, because the engines are at the ends of the car, the polar moment of inertia is higher, and the C of G is away from the Centre of Grip
(the stationary Centre of Grip would be the point in the car that you could attach a rope and pull the car in any direction without the car rotating. Therefore it is dependant on the tyres, and the weight distribution on the tyres. Clearly the centre of grip moves around the car in a dynamic situation)
That is why the best solution for a sports car will always be a mid engined car, (ferrari, lambougini, mclaren, saleen, koenigsegg) and why the elise is better than the boxster or the S2000.
By mid dengined I mean that the engine is in front of the rear wheels.
>> Edited by englishman in LA on Wednesday 4th December 16:01
englishman in LA said: All you need to make the engine close to or on the centre or gravity is for the rest of the car to be light and the engine to be heavy. Clearly Cof G is not the whole story. You have to factor in polar moment of inertia, which is basically the distribution of the mass from the C of G along the axis of the car, and the center of grip, which ideally ought to be close to the C of G also.
While both the S2000 and the boxster may have the engine close to the C of G, because the engines are at the ends of the car, the polar moment of inertia is higher, and the C of G is away from the Centre of Grip
(the stationary Centre of Grip would be the point in the car that you could attach a rope and pull the car in any direction without the car rotating. Therefore it is dependant on the tyres, and the weight distribution on the tyres. Clearly the centre of grip moves around the car in a dynamic situation)
That is why the best solution for a sports car will always be a mid engined car, (ferrari, lambougini, mclaren, saleen, koenigsegg) and why the elise is better than the boxster or the S2000.
By mid dengined I mean that the engine is in front of the rear wheels.
>> Edited by englishman in LA on Wednesday 4th December 16:01
Yeah, that's what I said in one of my original posts. The PMoI is a major determining factor in handling and the closer the majority of mass is to the CoG the lower the PMoI will be.
However, since it isn't possible to put the engine (usually the heaviest single component of a vehicle) at the CoG, everything else is a compromise. Whether you compromise by moving the engine slightly forward or slightly backward doesn't really matter - particularly when there are other large masses with which to contend (e.g. driver, gearbox, fuel tank, diff, etc).
Ergo, I dispute your assertion that a rear-mid engine (let's be honest and admit that there's really no such thing as a truly mid-engine car) design is automatically best when it comes to packaging a sports car. Lotus proved with the Elan M100 that a front-engined, FWD car can handle like it is on rails.
Re: onging mid-engine debate.
There is really little to argue other than with some terminology and definitions. The basic phyisics is well established, and has been correctly explained.
However, surely the Boxster IS mid-engined (engine behind the drive but ahead of the rear axle line), as opposed to the 911 which is definetly REAR engined.
Or is my undertanding of the Boxster layout incorrect?
There is really little to argue other than with some terminology and definitions. The basic phyisics is well established, and has been correctly explained.
However, surely the Boxster IS mid-engined (engine behind the drive but ahead of the rear axle line), as opposed to the 911 which is definetly REAR engined.
Or is my undertanding of the Boxster layout incorrect?
The words Mid engined car do not mean that the engine is in the middle, simply that its behind the driver and in front of the rear wheels.
I can definitely understand that a lotus 7 layout, where the engine is close to the middle of the car, and the driver is practically over the rear wheels is also a well balanced layout
As for front wheel drive cars, I can't speak about the M100, but in general handling and track times are down as you are splitting the front wheel grip between cornering and acceleration. Also weight transfer on takeoff is against you.
I don't know of a front wheel drive production car which puts down in excess of 250 bhp. (Eldorado?) though I'm sure someone could find one.
I can definitely understand that a lotus 7 layout, where the engine is close to the middle of the car, and the driver is practically over the rear wheels is also a well balanced layout
As for front wheel drive cars, I can't speak about the M100, but in general handling and track times are down as you are splitting the front wheel grip between cornering and acceleration. Also weight transfer on takeoff is against you.
I don't know of a front wheel drive production car which puts down in excess of 250 bhp. (Eldorado?) though I'm sure someone could find one.
I think all you guys have got way off the topic here and its getting a little boring!!!!
You've all gone into your own corners trying to convince everyone that you are right. Everyone has different opinions about everything - including cars and computers. I like eating cheese; my girlfriend doesn't, but I don't try to ram it down her throat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Personally I like the Boxster and the S2000 and indeed the Z3 and I would be glad to own any of them. I love the Elise - it will be my next car. My mate has an MX5 and its a great car but I wouldn't have one just purley cos I like the Elise more. I don't sit and argue with him that my choice of car is better than his. That car suits him and an Elise will suit me.
So guys quit it with the "My cars bigger/faster/better than yours" routine and get back to talking Lotus. After all this is a Lotus forum.
Like this
and this one too 
!!!!
You've all gone into your own corners trying to convince everyone that you are right. Everyone has different opinions about everything - including cars and computers. I like eating cheese; my girlfriend doesn't, but I don't try to ram it down her throat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Personally I like the Boxster and the S2000 and indeed the Z3 and I would be glad to own any of them. I love the Elise - it will be my next car. My mate has an MX5 and its a great car but I wouldn't have one just purley cos I like the Elise more. I don't sit and argue with him that my choice of car is better than his. That car suits him and an Elise will suit me.
So guys quit it with the "My cars bigger/faster/better than yours" routine and get back to talking Lotus. After all this is a Lotus forum.
Like this
and this one too !!!!I think it's fair enough, though, for scientists and engineers to argue based n actualy physics and engineering. You can go a very long way to mitigating the effects of placing an engine in a non optmal position, but the physics of a situation does mean that for a given aim, there's likely a best positoin t try and put the power plant.
It seems that when handling "finesse" is high up the priority list, the characteristics of rear mid engined will often come out on top. Whether the overall characteristics if this design is best will come down to personal reference, but the laws of physics do not bend to preferences.
That's maybe why I love physics so much,
And why I'm wondering why I'm not a physicist.
It seems that when handling "finesse" is high up the priority list, the characteristics of rear mid engined will often come out on top. Whether the overall characteristics if this design is best will come down to personal reference, but the laws of physics do not bend to preferences.
That's maybe why I love physics so much,
And why I'm wondering why I'm not a physicist.
Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff